DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s request for continued examination (RCE) received on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to the "mental processes" category because the claimed features cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Instead, the claims are directed to an automated measuring system which comprises, inter alia, the event generator (10), the risk splitter (11), the risk drivers (15), i.e., the measurement parameters influenced, and the control unit controller (16) with the local measuring sensors and measuring devices, 19 the electronic trigger (162) for triggering the measured values in the data connections of the measuring sensors and the measuring event driven data aggregator (161), as discussed in the present specification from line 27 on page 27 to line 20 on page 28. The automated measuring system is self-adapting based on an input parameter and direct input of the rating input and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring inputs where the input parameter corresponds to a specific rating input. The applicant assets the claimed invention is directed to real interactions between real objects which cause the risk measure - i.e., the risk is directed to the real interaction of actual objects. Specifically, the present simulations are performed in a way which allows to technically predict properties of systems that are either not analytically accessible (e.g., exact soil structure and soil layers in earthquake warning systems) or that are not observable because they lie in the future, as inherently given in prediction systems. Applicant respectfully submits that prediction systems for physical events based on actual measurement events should not be regarded as an abstract idea. Hence, it is further respectfully submitted that the claimed features cannot practically be performed in the human mind. As such, the claims cannot be directed to the "mental processes" category or any other abstract idea category.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations in their respective claims, are directed, in part, to systems and methods for tracking, parametrizing, modeling and forecasting developments of liability loss measures. These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity which include mitigating risk. It is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of assessing environmental risk by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. The examiner further notes that the concept of generating risk events measuring of and/or forecasting future occurrence probabilities and event risks and for quantized assessment of probably associated event impacts and probabilities of losses occurring is a concept that can be performed in the human mind, which falls into the “mental process”. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, the MPEP further states certain method of organizing human activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk) and commercial interactions (including business relations) are abstract. The instant claims are directed to progress monitoring and steering of impacts of a complex real-world system in relation to sustainable development goals. Measuring performance and events of a business in relation to defined goals is a fundamental business practice and is as such abstract. The amendments do not save the claims. The amendments remain directed to monitoring and steering of impacts of a complex system to a world environment which is a business practice.
The applicant argues the claimed features highlight the fact that the disclosed technical structure of the scenarios allows a time-discrete reliance and triggering of filed claims. This kind of reliance and association process is only needed for automated data processing in claim handling, and relies on the three-fold trigger-structure (set forth in the claimed invention) and the predict properties of real-world object interactions that are either not analytically accessible (e.g., exact soil structure and soil layers in earthquake warning systems) or that are not observable because they lie in the future, as inherently given in prediction systems. In this sense, the event generator forms a technically original part of the claimed system. In contrast to the typical systems, the claimed event generator allows an automated, different technical handling and parameterization of events, such as LLC-, ELC- or ULC events. This has several technical advantages such as that correlations ("clashes") can be intercepted by system automated, or that long-tail developments can be correctly captured by the system and also coupled to actual physical measurements with respect to local events with short-time effects, noted in the present specification. Applicant submits that prediction systems for physical events based on actual measurement events are technical and provide a technical improvement.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims as whole are considered, however the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The main functions of the additional elements recited in claim 1 are merely used to: collect data (e.g., measurement parameters), analyze the data (e.g., automated measuring and forecasting system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring input). Those are functions that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). automated measuring and forecasting system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring input are considered a conventional computer function as they’re just performing repetitive calculations and transferring/transmitting the risk (MPEP 2106.05, recomputing values/drivers and transmitting data).
The additional elements are directed to an automated measuring and forecasting system, processing circuitry, measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based for measuring occurring risk-events, wherein measured sensory data of the measuring devices are transmitted via a data transmission network to the forecasting system, comprising an electronic, control unit controller for processing of the captured electronic data, and are assigned to a historic set comprising event parameters for each risk-event, wherein for capturing and measuring the measured sensory data, the central control unit controller comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator with measuring data-driven triggers for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway of the sensors and/or measuring devices of the risk-exposed and affected units, and capture the multi- dimensional data (amounts to data gathering), and the automated measuring and forecasting system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring inputs (recited at high level of generality). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The examiner further notes the “measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based for measuring occurring risk-events, wherein measured sensory data of the measuring devices are transmitted via a data transmission network to the forecasting system, comprising an electronic, control unit controller for processing of the captured electronic data, and are assigned to a historic set comprising event parameters for each risk-event, wherein for capturing and measuring the measured sensory data, the central control unit controller comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator with measuring data-driven triggers for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway of the sensors and/or measuring devices of the risk-exposed and affected unit” has been considered as additional element, however the use of sensors to measure/collect data is considered post-solution activity, and amounts to data gathering means. Further, transmitting measured sensory data of the measuring devices are via a data transmission network is recited at high level of generality. these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre- solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states: An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. In the instant case, the capturing of parameters is considered mere data gathering which is incidental to the primary process in a similar way that obtaining information about credit card transactions to be analyzed was incidental to the primary process explained above. Further, MPEP 2106.05 also states Examiner should evaluate whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. In this case, the broadly recited capturing of parameters is well Known. The MPEP also cites several examples of mere data gathering that have been found to be insignificant extra- solution activity including gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price (see O/P Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93); and obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions (see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Moreover, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification “e.g. direct implementation of appropriate modeling structures on standard generic data processing system, e.g. computers””) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. In accordance to MPEP 2106.05(a)(1), for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include: mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Moreover, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Lastly, Applicant cites the Berkheimer decision and suggests that the pending claims also amount to significantly more, at least due to the fact that the pending claims recite features that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant’s argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the recent Berkheimer decision, which the Examiner emphasizes is germane only to Step 2B eligibility inquiry and only for “additional elements” (i.e., not the elements that actually recite the abstract idea). In particular, the Berkheimer memo provides guidelines for evaluating whether certain claim limitations (the “additional elements”) are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and describes the evidentiary requirements to support factual findings related thereto. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the Examiner emphasizes that a §101 rejection, including one based on a judicial exception, does not hinge on whether or not the entire claimed subject matter is directed to “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” as suggested by Applicant. Notably, a §101 rejection may be proper even if there are no claim elements deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments and with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, but are not persuasive. An updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1, 3-7, 16, and 17), the method (claims 8, 10-14, and 18), and system (claim 15 and 19) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of assessing environmental risk by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The MPEP further states certain method of organizing human activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (mitigating risk) and commercial interactions (including business relations) are abstract. The instant claims are directed to progress monitoring and steering of impacts of a complex real-world system in relation to sustainable development goals. Measuring performance and events of a business in relation to defined goals is a fundamental business practice and is as such abstract. The amendments do not save the claims. The amendments remain directed to monitoring and steering of impacts of a complex system to a world environment which is a business practice. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 15, are: An automated measuring system for systematic measuring of risk accumulation measures, the system being calibrated by connecting exposure measuring parameters with predicted measures for prospective loss quantifying parameters, the measuring system measuring and forecasting future occurrence probabilities of risk event using an event generator generating risk events with automated measurement and assessment of multi-risk exposures induced by the generated risk events, which are triggered by one or more involved causing units and affected units, wherein a plurality of affected units are subject to a risk exposure of occurring risk events caused by one or a plurality of causing units, wherein the captured exposure measuring parameters comprise external and internal factors of the units that affect exposure, the external measuring parameters impacting at least frequency or severity or the occurring risk events, the event generator comprising: processing circuitry; and measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based for measuring occurring risk-events, wherein measured sensory data of the measuring devices are transmitted via a data transmission network to the automated measuring system, comprising an electronic, control unit controller for processing of the captured electronic data, and are assigned to a historic set comprising event parameters for each risk-event, wherein for capturing and measuring the measured sensory data, the central control unit controller comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator with measuring data-driven triggers for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway of the sensors and/or measuring devices of the risk-exposed and affected units, the automated measuring and automated measuring system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring inputs, wherein the processing circuitry uses a forward-looking model technique which is based on the measured risk events validating and training a forward-looking model technique through the risk events measuring stations or sensors, and an input parameter of the forward-looking model is are directly measured during the operation of the automated measuring system, and the input parameter corresponds to a specific rating input, an event characteristics generation engine configured to capture a multi-dimensional scenario holding predefined accumulation scenarios, wherein the event generator of the automated measuring system is based on a structured forward-looking cause-effect chain with parsed parameter data space, wherein the modular forward-looking model structure is applied by reflecting the structured cause effect chain, with the parsed parameter data space connecting various activity link members of a scenario into a flow, if activities are handled by an activity link member from one activity to another activity, and wherein the multi-dimensional scenario comprises: a first accumulation scenario for capturing first frame parameters of limited liability catastrophe events (LLC), the first frame parameters defining risk events with a limited geographic impact range, with a short duration time window, with the plurality of affected units affected by an impact of occurring risk events, and with a plurality of causing risk exposed units affected by a loss burden associated with the impact of the occurring risk events, a second accumulation scenario for capturing second frame parameters of unlimited liability catastrophe scenario events (ULC), the second frame parameters defining risk events with a global geographic impact range, with an extended duration time of unfolding of the impact, and with an extended number of causing risk exposed units, and a third accumulation scenario of events (external liability catastrophe events (ELC)) for capturing third frame parameters defining third scenario risk impacting first and second scenario risk events with external influences, the third frame parameters capturing external influence measures impacting at least frequency or severity of the impact of the occurring risk events, wherein the event generator selects scenarios, when an LLC scenario group is triggered, by selecting relevant LLC scenarios from first scenarios of the multi-dimensional scenario based on activities assigned to selected risks, and when an ULC scenario group is triggered, by selecting relevant ULC scenarios from second scenarios of the multi-dimensional scenario based on the activities assigned to selected risks, wherein for the scenario selection, a list of relevant loss scenarios is selected based on the specific rating input giving the current exposure input by a scenario selector, the scenario selector being configured to comprise collecting all industries that are entered via the rating input, collecting all causing risk activities performable by said industries, returning all loss scenarios where at least one of the collected causing risk activities are involved, and providing a forward selection structure of rating to industries to causing risk activities to loss scenarios, wherein based on the selected scenarios, concrete events are generated by the event generator based on the multi-dimensional scenario with the predefined accumulation scenarios and accessibly assigned to a first, second, or third scenario event of the multi-dimensional scenario, respectively, wherein the structured cause-effect chain is provided by the event generator by generating for each of the scenarios a plurality of data sets holding risk events evolving from a specific accumulation scenario, and wherein an activity is realized as a unit that is executed and is part of a scenario in order that the scenario actually happens within the structured cause-effect chain of the event generator, wherein each causing activity has one or more types of industry assigned executing a given activity together with a probability measure that a causing activity is executed from a specific industry, and wherein the LLC, ULC and ELC scenario events are generated as occurring independently from a causing unit and corresponding probability values are generatable by providing a measure for a probability that a causing unit is part of events as generated, wherein the frequency is generated by an event frequency risk driver based on occurring measured frequency assigned to a specific geographic region, wherein the event frequency generation is provided as a consequence of a corresponding scenario group frequency multiplied by a loss scenario frequency share and a country frequency scaling, and wherein the generated frequency is region-specific assigned to the multi-dimensional scenario with the accumulation scenarios, wherein the frequency attenuation provides a measure how a frequency of a ULC scenario event changes with the time by an attenuation factor F scaling down the frequency for ULC scenario events lasting over a longer time than the time using an exposure start year and a current year, wherein the event characteristic generation engine is configured to capture the multi- dimensional scenario, the first accumulation scenario, the second accumulation scenario, and the third accumulation scenario, wherein in case of a generated LLC scenario event, a frequency is generated based on its occurring frequency assigned to a specific geographic region or country, wherein the occurring frequency of events is measured and transferred from temporal and data-rich contexts to contexts in complex parameter fields, wherein the country frequency scaling is provided by a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) scaling starting from a known frequency value of another geographic region or country, the GDP scaling being scaled by the event characteristic generation engine, wherein in case of an ULC scenario event generated as a global event, a frequency is generated based on its yearly frequency starting to unfold in a corresponding year 1 providing a year-allocation of a ULC scenario event of its first year to occur, wherein the frequency generation is provided as a consequence of a corresponding scenario group frequency multiplied by a loss scenario frequency share and a frequency attenuation, wherein the frequency attenuation provides a measure how a frequency of a ULC scenario event changes with the time by an attenuation factor F scaling down the frequency for ULC scenario events lasting over the longer time than the time by the attenuation factor F or an extension thereof, wherein the frequency attenuation provides the measure how the frequency of the ULC scenario event changes with the time by the attenuation factor F scaling down the frequency for ULC scenario events lasting over the longer time than the time by
PNG
media_image1.png
48
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Y1 the exposure start year, Y2 is the current year and K is an exponent coefficient, wherein selecting a list of relevant loss scenarios is based on a specific rating input by collecting all causing risk exposed units that are entered via the specific rating input, collecting all causing risk activities performable by said industries, and returning all loss scenarios where at least one of the collected causing risk activities are involved, providing a forward selection of rating to industries to causing risk activities to loss scenarios, the forward selection being provided by the event characteristic generation engine, wherein the risk events include a latency modelling structure with a manifestation to a chemical substance with a risk to health of people, and wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure a duration between an exposure to the chemical substance and the manifestation, wherein the measuring data-driven triggers comprise loss and claim triggers providing a three-level trigger structure comprising (1) an occurrence trigger triggered by detection of an occurrence of an exposure, (2) a manifestation trigger triggered by detected manifestation of a loss, and (3) a claim trigger triggered by a detected transmission of a claim for a loss, and wherein the occurrence trigger and manifestation trigger are interlinked by a manifestation latency structure activating the manifestation trigger only if a latency time given by a time between the detected exposure and the detected manifestation is detected to be within a time period of predefined risk-transfer parameters, a loss being allocated by the system to a claim only in case of the manifestation trigger being activated, the three-level trigger providing an explicit reliance on a time dimension of a claim shared by all three scenarios LLC/ULC/ELC. Claims 1 and 8 recite substantially the same limitation as claim 15 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to an automated measuring system, processing circuitry, measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based for measuring occurring risk-events, wherein measured sensory data of the measuring devices are transmitted via a data transmission network to the automated measuring system, comprising an electronic, control unit controller for processing of the captured electronic data, and are assigned to a historic set comprising event parameters for each risk-event, wherein for capturing and measuring the measured sensory data, the central control unit controller comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator with measuring data-driven triggers for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway of the sensors and/or measuring devices of the risk-exposed and affected units, and capture the multi- dimensional data, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure activities in the activity chain, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure movements of people among a group exposed to the chemical substance, a group not exposed to the chemical substance, and a group of others, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure a duration between an exposure to the chemical substance and the manifestation and the scenario selector being configured to comprise collecting all industries that are entered via the rating input, collecting all causing risk activities performable by said industries, returning all loss scenarios where at least one of the collected causing risk activities are involved (amounts to data gathering). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification “e.g. direct implementation of appropriate modeling structures on standard generic data processing system, e.g. computers”) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. The main functions of the additional elements recited in claim 1 are merely used to: collect data (e.g., measurement parameters), analyze the data (e.g., automated measuring and forecasting system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring input). Those are functions that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). automated measuring and forecasting system being self-adapting and refining over time by utilizing data or parameter measuring input are considered a conventional computer function as they’re just performing repetitive calculations and transferring/transmitting the risk (MPEP 2106.05, recomputing values/drivers and transmitting data).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: an automated measuring system, processing circuitry, measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based for measuring occurring risk-events, wherein measured sensory data of the measuring devices are transmitted via a data transmission network to the automated measuring system, comprising an electronic, control unit controller for processing of the captured electronic data, and are assigned to a historic set comprising event parameters for each risk-event, wherein for capturing and measuring the measured sensory data, the central control unit controller comprises a risk-event driven core aggregator with measuring data-driven triggers for triggering, capturing, and monitoring in the data flow pathway of the sensors and/or measuring devices of the risk-exposed and affected units, and capture the multi- dimensional data, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure activities in the activity chain, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure movements of people among a group exposed to the chemical substance, a group not exposed to the chemical substance, and a group of others, wherein the measuring stations or sensors are configured to measure a duration between an exposure to the chemical substance and the manifestation, and the scenario selector being configured to comprise collecting all industries that are entered via the rating input, collecting all causing risk activities performable by said industries, returning all loss scenarios where at least one of the collected causing risk activities are involved (amounts to data gathering). These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification “e.g. direct implementation of appropriate modeling structures on standard generic data processing system, e.g. computers””) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Furthermore, measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based configured to receive/transmit data encompass well understood, routine, and conventional activity/elements in the prior art. See, e.g., Adams, et al., US2009/0192834A1(paragraph [0107] “Process 1100 may utilize any of the monitoring techniques (e.g. including those for retrieval of sensed readings/information from the sensors, analyses of the sensed readings/information, rendering of conclusions, evaluation of rendered conclusions, or generation/transmission of reports including indication(s) of malfunction(s) and optionally their location(s) within the beverage dispensing system 100) as described in any of the above embodiments, or may utilize other conventional techniques known to those skilled in the art.”). See, e.g., Howard, et al., US2010/0271394A1(paragraph [0053] “The network connection may connect to the communications network through use of a conventional modem (at any known or later developed baud rate), an open line connection (e.g., digital subscriber lines or cable connections), satellite receivers/transmitters, wireless communication receivers/transmitters, or any other network connection device as known in the art now or in the future”). Moreover, the measuring stations or sensors in loco and/or by satellite-based referred to in the claims are recited at high level of generality with no meaningful limit as to the type of sensor or satellite or the manner in which it is relied on to generate the data and is not indicative of a practical application.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1, 3-8 and 10-19 are allowable over prior art of record, they are not allowable because they stand rejected over the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action. If they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101) rejection, they would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20010053993 A1
Continuously Updated Data Processing System and Method for Measuring and Reporting on Value Creation Performance That Supports Real-Time Benchmarking
McLean, Robert I.G. et al.
US 20020184067 A1
Continuously Updated Data Processing System and Method for Measuring and Reporting on Value Creation Performance That Supports Real-Time Benchmarking
McLean, Robert I.G. et al.
US 20030028466 A1
System And Method for Providing Financial Planning and Advice
Jenson, Jodi et al.
US 20090192834 A1
Revenue Generation Method for Monitoring of Fluid Dispensing System
Adams; David J. et al.
US 20100271394 A1
System And Method for Merging Virtual Reality and Reality to Provide an Enhanced Sensory Experience
Howard; Terrence Dashon
US 20110173093 A1
Evaluating Public Records of Supply Transactions for Financial Investment Decisions
Psota; James Ryan et al.
US 20120143633 A1
System And Method for Forecasting Frequencies Associated to Future Loss and For Related Automated Operation of Loss Resolving Units
SALGHETTI; Filippo et al.
US 20120317058 A1
Design Of Computer Based Risk and Safety Management System of Complex Production and Multifunctional Process Facilities-Application to Fpso's
ABHULIMEN; Kingsley E.
US 20140258032 A1
Transaction Facilitating Marketplace Platform
Psota; James Ryan et al.
US 20170083981 A1
Adaptive Coupling-System Based on A Flexible Risk Transfer Structure and Corresponding Method Thereof
NIERING; Rita et al.
US 20170161859 A1
Disaster Risk Management and Financing System, And Corresponding Method Thereof
BAUMGARTNER; David et al.
US 20170346846 A1
Security Threat Information Gathering and Incident Reporting Systems and Methods
Findlay; Valarie Ann
US 20180078843 A1
Smart Device
Tran; Bao et al.
US 20180114272 A1
Inter-Arrival Times Triggered, Probabilistic Risk-Transfer System and a Corresponding Method Thereof
REIMANN; Stefan et al.
US 20180253533 A1
Clinical Trial Management and Supply System and Method
Warren; Adam S.
US 7657475 B1
Property Investment Rating System and Method
Arpin; Jeffrey L. et al.
WO 2007005975 A2
Risk Modeling System
VLASIMSKY RICHARD et al.
NPL
Flood Prediction and Disaster Risk Analysis using GIS based Wireless Sensor Networks
Naveed Ahmad
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625