DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Sept. 5th, 2025 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Sept. 5th, 2025. A summary of this action:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 19, 21-25 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of informalities
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 19, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, “Discrete Event Simulation: A Population Growth Example”, Mar. 2016, MicroSoft, MSDN Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 3, URL: download(dot)microsoft(dot)com/download/8/b/f/8bfccbb0-3d14-4495-9586-e41a6c1557cd/mdn_1603dg(dot)pdf taken in view of previously cited Saucier et al., “Computer Generation of Statistical Distributions”, Mar. 2000 in view of Shewchuk, John P., and T-C. Chang. "An approach to object-oriented discrete-event simulation of manufacturing systems." 1991 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings.. IEEE Computer Society, 1991.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, “Discrete Event Simulation: A Population Growth Example”, Mar. 2016, MicroSoft, MSDN Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 3, URL: download(dot)microsoft(dot)com/download/8/b/f/8bfccbb0-3d14-4495-9586-e41a6c1557cd/mdn_1603dg(dot)pdf taken in view of previously cited Saucier et al., “Computer Generation of Statistical Distributions”, Mar. 2000 in view of Shewchuk, John P., and T-C. Chang. "An approach to object-oriented discrete-event simulation of manufacturing systems." 1991 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings.. IEEE Computer Society, 1991 in view of official notice
As a point of clarity, this was a minor typographical mistake – the prior rejection at pages 50-51 relied upon official notice explicitly, as noted by the bolded “Official Notice” statements, followed by the obviousness rationale, with nearly 2 pages discussion this in detail in the rejection so as to ensure the Applicant had due notice of the rejection’s rationale for purposes of responding, but the heading of the rejection was not updated to reflect this as a minor clerical mistake. It has been remedied.
Claim(s) 12-17, 19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez, “Discrete Event Simulation: A Population Growth Example”, Mar. 2016, MicroSoft, MSDN Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 3, URL: download(dot)microsoft(dot)com/download/8/b/f/8bfccbb0-3d14-4495-9586-e41a6c1557cd/mdn_1603dg(dot)pdf taken in view of previously cited Saucier et al., “Computer Generation of Statistical Distributions”, Mar. 2000 and in further view of AGLIO, GIANLUCA, and FEDERICO FOLGHERAITER. "Real-time validation of discrete event simulation models in a real-time framework: statistical techniques and harmonic analysis approach." (2017) as taken in view of Grassmann, Winfried K. "Factors affecting warm-up periods in discrete event simulation." Simulation 90.1 (2014): 11-23.
This action is non-final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding the priority denial
Maintained. No remarks submitted.
Regarding the claim objections
Some withdrawn, some maintained, in view of the amendments. New objections below.
Regarding the § 112(b) Rejection
Maintained.
With respect to the remarks, the Examiner notes that that § 112(b) is a matter of law, wherein the claim is to set forth the metes and bounds of exactly what is claimed.
It is not a question of written description nor enablement under § 112(a), as these remarks imply.
Furthermore, this is not the variable of integration as alleged, rather it is part of the interval of integration, i.e. the range over which the function is to be integrated (e.g. if the function is y=mx for a straight line with an origin at 0, and the interval was from 0->5, then the integration would be the area under the curve y=mx+b for x = 0->5).
In other words, the interval of integration for claim 15 is from negative infinity to the sampling point X (note the capital).
But, at issue for claim 15 is that the variable “x” (lowercase) is entirely undefined, leaving the metes and bounds left to solely the speculation of POSITA.
To clarify for claim construction, MPEP § 2106.05(h): “iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199;” – i.e. the broad claim is C=2(pi)r, wherein C = circumference of a circle, r = radius of the circle, and pi is the well-known constant value.
The narrow claim: C=2(pi)r, wherein C = circumference of a wheel, r= radius of the wheel. The only distinction is in what the variables are defined in the claim as, but they do further limit the scope of such a claim to determining the circumference of a wheel instead of any circular objects.
At issue for claim 15 is that its entirely indefinite for this equation because it does not recite what “x” is at all, placing no limit that is definite per the requirements of § 112(b) – MPEP § 2171: “Two separate requirements are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, namely that: (A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; and (B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. The first requirement is a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention. Note that although pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, uses the phrase "which applicant regards as his invention," pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a) provides that a patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors. The second requirement is an objective one because it is not dependent on the views of the inventor or any particular individual, but is evaluated in the context of whether the claim is definite — i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Although an essential purpose of the examination process is to determine whether or not the claims define an invention that is both novel and nonobvious over the prior art, another essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. The uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process”
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, regarding Wikipedia at page 11, these remarks are entirely moot because arguments cannot take the place of evidence when evidence is required, and because neither the claims nor the disclose are directed towards an improvement in DES simulation technology - ¶ 63: “This may entail operations such as loading a
commercial discrete event simulation (DES) or other probabilistic simulation software
package (e.g. AnyLogic simulation tool available from AnyLogic; MathWorks Simulation
Software available from MathWorks Inc., FlexSim available from FlexSim Software Products Inc., or so forth) onto the computer 120, and constructing a system model 132 of the system to be simulated in accord with the syntax and formatting of the chosen commercial simulation software package” – i.e. this is merely using commonplace, commercially available software in its ordinary capacity.
MPEP § 2145: “Rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented in the specification, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995), by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, e.g., Soni, 54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d at 1687; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1474, 223 USPQ 785, 789-90 (Fed. Cir. 1984), or otherwise presented during prosecution. See, e.g., MPEP §§ 714 to 716 et seq. However, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).”
As a point of further clarity, the improvement consideration is not made in Sept. 2025 for this instant application, but rather on the date it was effectively filed (note the prior denial) of Jan. 2021, i.e. its arguments instead of evidence where evidence is required from the specification – MPEP § 2106.05(a): “That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art… Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.” – and attorney argument is not the same as a 1.132 declaration.
Furthermore, these remarks do not even submit what the improvement to DES simulation is, but rather merely state that it’s an improvement, i.e. they are simply stating the conclusion for the improvement analysis, with no detail on what the improvement even is.
With respect to the remarks, starting at page 15, regarding ¶¶ 6-7 of the instant disclosure, first the Examiner notes these remarks solely point to claim 1, whereas the other independent lack numerous features of claim 1, and the remarks do not address the other claims (i.e. the rejections for the other independents are unargued), then see ¶¶ 48-51 as well, then see SAP v. InvestPic in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(I)(C): “i. performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018);” – to clarify, see the opinion of SAP: “To remedy those deficiencies, the patent proposes a technique that "utilizes resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data," which do not assume a normal probability distribution. Id ., col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 3. One such method is a bootstrap method, which estimates the distribution of data in a pool (a sample space) by repeated sampling of the data in the pool. Id ., col. 10, lines 20-38. A sample space in a bootstrap method can be defined by selecting a specific investment or a particular period of time. Id ., col. 12, lines 62-66. Data samples are drawn from the sample space "with replacement": samples are drawn from the sample space and then returned to the pool before the next sample is drawn. Id ., col. 10, lines 60-62, col. 11, lines 18-20. The patent also describes using a "bias parameter" to "specif[y] the degree of randomness in the resampling process." Id ., col. 11, lines 55-58. In order to "perform a resampled statistical analysis," a client "may specify a number of parameters including an investment or investments (e.g., a portfolio) to be analyzed, a financial function, a sample size, a period, a type of plot and a bias parameter, which controls the randomness of the resampling process." Id ., col. 2, lines 50-56… We have already noted that limitation of the claims to a particular field of information—here, investment information—does not move the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas. Dependent method claims 2-5, 7, and 10 add "limitations . . . [that] require[] the resampling method to be a bootstrap method." SAP, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 715 . Likewise, "[c]laims 8 and 9 add limitations that the statistical method is a jackknife method and a cross validation method." Id. at 716 . Because bootstrap, jackknife, and cross-validation methods are all "particular methods of resampling," those features simply provide further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations. They add nothing outside the abstract realm... There is, in short, nothing "inventive" about any claim details, individually or in combination, that are not themselves in the realm of abstract ideas. In the absence of the required "inventive concept" in application, the claims here are legally equivalent to claims simply to the asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas—an advance in mathematical techniques in finance. Under the principles developed in interpreting § 101 , patent law does not protect such claims, without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” – or, to summarize this, MPEP § 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)… Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
To clarify, while these remarks recite several times the entire claim language as the improvement, see MPEP § 2106.05(a): “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel")” – which, for the alleged improvement would be: “for each parameter of the system model, randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter; and running the DES method N times using the system model with the randomly drawn values for the parameters of the system model wherein N is an integer greater than one, wherein the output DES data are annotated by the randomly drawn values for the parameter” – see SAP v. InvestPic opinion as noted above, for its discussion of “bootstrapping” as including steps of drawings samples from a “sample space” “with replacement” with some “degree of randomness in the resampling process”, wherein SAP stated this was a “math operation”, and MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) lists it in “examples of math calculations” (note: “"performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” in this section)).
Thus, as “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP § 2106.05(I)) and MPEP § 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” – what provides/furnishes the alleged improvement is the judicial exception alone, and Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (MPEP § 2106.04(I)).
See the rejection below for further clarification.
Regarding the § 102/103 Rejection
Withdrawn, with a new grounds presented below as necessitated by amendment. Newly cited art is relied upon, and thus the features previously not rejected under § 102/103 are now rejected in view of the newly cited art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the sampling point X”, however as this is a first recitation the Examiner suggests using the articles “a”/”an”
Preamble of the claim 1 recite the acronym “DES”, but this acronym is only spelled out for what it is in the body of the claim. The Examiner suggests “discrete event simulation (DES)” in the preamble, and later recitation then may simple recite “DES”
Independent claim recite “wherein the event software modules of the plurality of event software modules comprise object-oriented programming (OOP) objects grouped into module groups, wherein the module groups have group-level class definitions and event software modules belonging to a module group inherit the group-level class definitions of the module group to which the event software modules belong” – this limitation adds another “event software modules” element, but does not disambiguate from the prior recitations. In view of the context of this limitation, the Examiner suggests the modifier “group”, i.e. “group event software models belonging to a modules group…”
Claim 1 recites “a first set of instructions readable and executable by the electronic processor to perform a discrete event simulation (DES) method comprising:…” followed by a series of steps, and then recites: “wherein the DES method simulates a system represented by a system model having parameters with associated probability density functions (PDFs), and the non-transitory storage medium further stores at third set of instructions readable and executable by the electronic processor to perform M outer loops where M is an integer greater than one, each outer loop including:…” – such an ordering of series of steps is informal. See MPEP § 608.01(m): “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats” – the Examiner suggests amending the claim to more clearly follow the formatting discussed in MPEP §608.01(m).
Claim 1 has an obvious typographical mistake – “at third set of instructions” with the article “at” instead of “a”
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 62/957,943 and 62/959,390, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
At issue is that the particular combination recited in the present claims is not sufficiently described in either the ‘943 or the ‘390 provisional applications on their own, but rather draw upon an undisclosed particular combination of the features of these two separately filed provisional application.
See MPEP § 2163(II)(A): “For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. The court found the "examiner was explicit that while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was lack of adequate description of their combination" and, thus, "[t]he burden was then properly shifted to [inventor] to cite to the examiner where adequate written description could be found or to make an amendment to address the deficiency." Id.; see also Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., 499 Fed. App’x 5, 13-14 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (non-precedential) (Finding inadequate written support for claims drawn to a method of processing debit purchase transactions requiring three separate authorization codes because "the written description [did] not contain a method that include[d] all three codes" and "[e]ach authorization code is an important claim limitation, and the presence of multiple authorization codes in [the claim] was essential".).”
Also see MPEP 2163(I): "An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)."
See the present independent claim 1, and dependent claim 27.
Claim 1 recites: “perform M outer loops where M is an integer greater than one, each outer loop including: for each parameter of the system model, randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter; and running the DES method N times using the system model with the randomly drawn values for the parameters of the system model wherein N is an integer greater than one, wherein the output DES data are annotated by the randomly drawn values for the parameters”
This feature is solely described in the ‘390 provisional application, e.g. see claim 1, see fig. 1-2 and their accompanying descriptions. The ‘943 provisional application does not sufficiently describe the particular presently claimed combination, e.g. see the ‘943 claim 1, and fig. 1 to fig. 3, e.g. the present claims recite: “randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter” whereas the ‘943 ¶ 22 recites only: “In generating each member, the attributes are selected using the corresponding attribute PDFs defined in the parameter file 22, by drawing random numbers from the random number generator 14 of the DES controller 10” which does sufficiently describe what is presently claimed.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of event software modules readable and executable by the electronic processor to define events that transform attributes of members of at least one population class in accord with probabilistic event models defined by event model parameter files, wherein the event software modules of the plurality of event software modules comprise object-oriented programming (OOP) objects grouped into module groups, wherein the module groups have group-level class definitions and event software modules belonging to a module group inherit the group-level class definitions of the module group to which the event software modules belong.” – this feature is only sufficiently described in the ‘943 provisional application, e.g. ¶ 25 and elsewhere.
The ‘390 provisional application is silent as to such a feature, e.g. it does not described object-oriented programming objects, nor does it describe event modules, let alone the remaining portions of the particular combination of elements recited in the present claims– i.e. there is not sufficient support in either one of these provisional alone for the particular combination (of the two provisionals) now presently claimed.
As such, for at least the above reasons, the present claim 1 and its dependents are not sufficiently described by either provisional application on its own, and therefore the present claims 1 and dependents thereof do not receive the benefit of priority to either of the provisional applications, as neither provisional application, taken on its own, sufficiently describe the ordered particular combinations recited in each of the present independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites an equation. In said equation, there is a lowercase “x” – the lowercase “x” is not defined in the instant disclosure as to what it is. See ¶ 14 and ¶ 52. Thus, the claim is indefinite because the variable is undefined to POSITA.
As a point of clarity, the Examiner notes that POSITA may have recognized this equation as being in substantially similar form as the well-known equation defining a cumulative distribution function in statistics, and as such speculated that this was the CDF equation. Under this speculative interpretation, which should be adopted should the§ 112(b) rejection be reversed given that the disclosure provided no details on what "x" is, a ground of rejection has been entered below under § 103.
Else should this rejection be affirmed, then the § 103 rejection would be withdrawn in view of MPEP § 2143.03(1): "However, an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (The "considerable speculation" by the examiner and the Board as to the scope of the claims did not provide a proper basis for an obviousness rejection.). A claim should not be rejected over prior art just because it is indefinite. Ionescu, 222 USPQ at 540 (citing Steele).".”
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, 3-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 19, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 23 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 12 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 12 and 23, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof, except where otherwise noted.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
As a point of clarity, the focus of the claimed advance of this claimed invention is the statistical sampling strategy recited in the present claims, as discussed in detail below, as used with “Monte Carlo sampling” (¶¶ 58-61, in particular note ¶ 61), wherein the advance is the application of this technique as compared to the typical “Latin hypercube sampling” technique (¶¶ 48-50).
It claims no inventive concept in the performance of the DES simulation itself (¶ 63, describing a litany of commercially available software packages readily able to perform this act in their ordinary capacity).
As to the use of object-oriented programming (see claim 1, see MPEP §2111.01(III)) for DES simulations – this is not an inventive concept. POSITA would have known this, for it is well-known that object-oriented programming first language was specifically for DES simulation, i.e. the concept of object-oriented programming originated with DES simulation.
Wikipedia, article on Simula, URL: Wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Simula, accessed electronically on Dec. 10th, 2025, which further clarifies on this, noting “Simula 67 introduced objects,[1]: 2, 5.3 classes,[1]: 1.3.3, 2 inheritance, subclasses[1]: 2.2.3 and an implementation of the polymorphism,[1]: 1.3.3 virtual procedures,[1]: 2.2.3 coroutines,[1]: 9.2 and discrete event simulation,[1]: 14.2 and featured garbage collection.[1]: 9.1 Other forms of subtyping (besides inheriting subclasses) were introduced in Simula derivatives. Simula is considered the first object-oriented programming language.” – in in the history section clarifies: “By May 1962, the main concepts for a simulation language were established; SIMULA I, a specialized programming language designed for simulating discrete event systems, was born. Simula 67 was formally standardized on the first meeting of the Simula Standards Group (SSG) in February 1968…”
To clarify – in the history section: “In November 2001, Dahl and Nygaard were awarded the IEEE John von Neumann Medal by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers "For the introduction of the concepts underlying object-oriented programming through the design and implementation of SIMULA 67". In April 2002, they received the 2001 A. M. Turing Award by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), with the citation: "For ideas fundamental to the emergence of object oriented programming, through their design of the programming languages Simula I and Simula 67." Dahl and Nygaard died in June and August of that year, respectively,[13] before the ACM Turing Award Lecture[14] that was scheduled to be delivered at the November 2002 OOPSLA conference in Seattle.”
Dagkakis, Georgios, Ioannis Papagiannopoulos, and Cathal Heavey. "ManPy: an open‐source software tool for building discrete event simulation models of manufacturing systems." Software: Practice and Experience 46.7 (2016): 955-981. § 4.2: “Discrete event simulation is traditionally an appropriate paradigm where object-oriented (OO) programming can be used [48]…”
Perez, “Discrete Event Simulation: A Population Growth Example”, Mar. 2016, MicroSoft, MSDN Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 3, URL: download(dot)microsoft(dot)com/download/8/b/f/8bfccbb0-3d14-4495-9586-e41a6c1557cd/mdn_1603dg(dot)pdf – see the section “Discrete Event Simulation”, including the last two paragraphs, which discusses that the very concept of object-oriented programming was “first…introduce[ed]” for simulation programming in the context of discrete event simulation in the languge “Simula”
Holmevik, “The History of Simula”, University of Chile, 1995, URL: users(dot)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl/~cgutierr/cursos/LP/SimulaHistory(dot)html – see ¶ 1, then in “PULLING THE THREADS TOGETHER” see ¶ 1: “Monte Carlo simulation had proved to be a serviceable tool for analysis of these modelsand when the Ferranti MERCURY was eventually installed at NDRE in late summer of 1957,Nygaard and his team immediately started to write computer simulation programs… In January 1962Nygaard wrote to his colleague, the French operations research specialist, Charles Salzmann: The status on the Simulation Language (Monte Carlo Compiler)…” - i.e. the inventor of Simula even also knew about Monte Carlo simulation
Nance, Richard E. "A history of discrete event simulation programming languages." History of programming languages---II. 1996. 369-427. § 8.1.1.1 ¶¶ 1-4: “Discrete event simulation utilizes a mathematicalnogical model of a physical system that portrays state changes at precise points in simulated time… Monte Carlo simulation, the name given by John von Neumann and Stanislaw M. Ulam [Morgenthaler 1961, p. 368] to reflect its gambling similarity, utilizes models of uncertainty where representation of time is unnecessary. The term is originally attributed to "a situation in which a difficult non probablistic problem is solved through the invention of a stochastic process that satisfies the relations of the deterministic problem" [Morgenthaler 1961 ]. A more recent characterization is that Monte Carlo is "the method of repetitive trials" [Shreider 1966, p.1 ]. Typical of Monte Carlo simulation is the approximation of a definite integral by 'circumscribing the region with a known geometric shape, then generating random points to estimate the area of the region through the proportion of points falling within the region boundaries…” and § 8.1.1.2: “The impact of the object-oriented paradigm, and the subsequent clamor over object-oriented programming languages, first represented by SIMULA, would appear in hindsight to contradict this opinion, which accurately represented the attitude of the programming language research community at that time…” and § 8.3.2, last paragraph: “The technical contributions of SIMULA are impressive, almost awesome. Dahl and Nygaard, in their attempt to create a language where objects in the real world could be accurately and naturally described, introduced conceptual advances that would be heralded as a paradigmatic shift almost two decades later. Almost lost in the clamor over the implementation of abstract data types, the class concept, inheritance, the coroutine concept, and quasi-parallel execution were the solution of significant problems in the extension of ALGOL 60. The creation, deletion, and set manipulation operations on objects are but one example. A second is that the sharing of attribute values by interacting processes required a means for breaking down the scoping restrictions of ALGOL 60.”
Pegden US 8,156,468 (note ¶ 63 in the instant disclosure for “FlexSim) for its background section, as discussed in Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Nor is the inventive concept APIs for software, Rendle, “A Brief History of the Future of the API”, May 2020, Presentation at QCON London 2020, Recording at www(dot)infoq(dot)com/presentations/api-history/ - “We had to create application programming interfaces. We had to create ways that if we made a piece of software, whether that was an order management, stock control, usually finance back in those days, banks were early adopters. They had lots of different applications dealing with different things. Those applications needed to be able to talk to each other. They had to create APIs. We've been using APIs, as programmers. Pretty much everything we use could be considered an API… Then everything we interact with, whether that's a database, or a messaging system, or a queue, that has an API that we talk to as well. Then of course, we got the higher-level APIs now of talking to other services in service oriented architecture or microservices…”
Rather, the focus of the claimed advance lies sole in the sampling technique used, wherein it is recited as “for each parameter of the system model, randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter; and” – see “i. performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
To clarify on this, the Examiner notes the opinion of SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161: “…To remedy those deficiencies, the patent proposes a technique that "utilizes resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data," which do not assume a normal probability distribution. Id ., col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 3. One such method is a bootstrap method, which estimates the distribution of data in a pool (a sample space) by repeated sampling of the data in the pool. Id ., col. 10, lines 20-38. A sample space in a bootstrap method can be defined by selecting a specific investment or a particular period of time. Id ., col. 12, lines 62-66. Data samples are drawn from the sample space "with replacement": samples are drawn from the sample space and then returned to the pool before the next sample is drawn. Id ., col. 10, lines 60-62, col. 11, lines 18-20…. Because bootstrap, jackknife, and cross-validation methods are all "particular methods of resampling," those features simply provide further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations. They add nothing outside the abstract realm. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88-89 (stating that narrow embodiments of ineligible matter, citing mathematical ideas as an example, are still ineligible); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (same).”
In sum, the focus of the presently claimed advance is a “math operation[]”, which is a math calculation (SAP, as quoted above). MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” – which is a math concept. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations” which is not eligible subject matter with an integration of the math concept into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
incrementing a timepoint for the DES until a stopping criterion is met; - math calculations in textual form, i.e. adding/incrementing a number to another number
wherein the DES method simulates a system represented by a system model having parameters with associated probability density functions (PDFs), and the non- transitory storage medium further stores at third set of instructions readable and executable by the electronic processor to perform M outer loops where M is an integer greater than one, each outer loop including: for each parameter of the system model, randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter; and running the DES method N times using the system model with the randomly drawn values for the parameters of the system model wherein N is an integer greater than one, - math calculations/equations/relationships in textual form, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer. To clarify, as discussed in detail below, the act of the random drawing with replacement in the manner recited is a math calculation/performing a math operation in textual form; and the running of the DES method is merely reciting textually statistical math calculations with PDFs, e.g. ¶ 47: “For a trucking fleet simulation as a non-limiting example, the prices of more expensive and less expensive grades of diesel can be represented by corresponding probability density functions (PDFs) capturing the expected pricing variation due to market forces (e.g., based on historical data for diesel pricing), and likewise the mean (and possibly variance) of the PDFs representing fuel efficiency of the respective grades of diesel can themselves be represented by PDFs (for example, based on variation in fuel efficiency amongst trucks in some test runs). Then, the models are re-run using the different sets of parameters a sufficient number of times to capture the statistical variation of the results due to the uncertainties in the pricing and fuel efficiency PDF mean parameters.” – and the Examiner notes that the claim requires the system model to be associated with said PDFs and parameters of said PDFs (further noting that PDFs are probability density functions, see Merriam Webster Dictionary, definition of “probability density function”, accessed electronically on Dec. 10th, 2025, URL: merriam-webster(dot)com/dictionary/probability%20density%20function “a function of a continuous random variable whose integral over an interval gives the probability that its value will fall within the interval”, i.e. math equations/relationships in textual form, and PDF mean is the result of mathematically calculating the mean of the distribution; see ¶ 63 to further clarify incl.: “Parameters defining random variables might, for example, include the mean and variance parameters of a Gaussian PDF of a random variable for the fuel economies of the trucks of the fleet.” – i.e. the claimed parameters of the PDFs are, under the BRI consistent with the disclosure, merely mathematical metrics resulting from math calculations with math equations/relationships of probability density functions; these are not parameters in a particular data structure)
To further clarify on the BRI of the simulating with PDFs, see ¶¶ 49-51: “In approaches disclosed herein, Monte Carlo simulation is used to specify a set of parameter values drawn from a discrete set of possible parameter values, e.g. defined as a set of percentiles. This set of Monte Carlo-generated parameter values is used to perform a certain number of simulation iterations (e.g., user specified), and outputs information about both the values of the parameters (selected by the Monte Carlo sampling for the simulation) and the outputs (e.g., used to estimate variance). By the combination of using Monte Carlo sampling, and more specifically Monte Carlo sampling… Since all calculations (e.g. expectation or variance) are done on only those model outputs (Y) that were generated by the same model input (X), it can be challenging to produce simulations with the same set of input parameter values with few iterations for a large number of input parameters” – then see ¶¶ 52-53; also see ¶¶69-72
With respect to the randomly drawing, this is akin to “i. performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018), modifying SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018);” as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
To clarify on this, the Examiner notes the opinion of SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161: “…To remedy those deficiencies, the patent proposes a technique that "utilizes resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data," which do not assume a normal probability distribution. Id ., col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 3. One such method is a bootstrap method, which estimates the distribution of data in a pool (a sample space) by repeated sampling of the data in the pool. Id ., col. 10, lines 20-38. A sample space in a bootstrap method can be defined by selecting a specific investment or a particular period of time. Id ., col. 12, lines 62-66. Data samples are drawn from the sample space "with replacement": samples are drawn from the sample space and then returned to the pool before the next sample is drawn. Id ., col. 10, lines 60-62, col. 11, lines 18-20.”
Claim 12 recites a similar mathematical concept as claim 1, and as such is rejected under a similar rationale. To clarify, in claim 12 the limitations as below are the math concept:
performing M outer loops where M is an integer greater than one, each outer loop including:
for each parameter, randomly drawing a value for the parameter with replacement from a set of discrete sampling points distributed over the PDF associated with the parameter;
and running N simulations of the system using the system model with the randomly drawn values for the parameters wherein N is an integer greater than one
Claim 23 is rejected under a similar rationale as claims 1 and 12 for the similar recitations.
perform a statistical analysis on the simulation results including computing a variance Var(E[YIX]) due to uncertainty in the values of the parameters, where X is the set of parameters of the system model, Y is the simulation results, and E stands for expectation. – math calculation in both textual form and with a math equation expressly recited in the claim. Also, “expectation” as recited herein is a math calculation/operation - ¶ 51 to clarify: “calculations (e.g. expectation or variance)” , wherein, per page 25, this is part of the “law of total variance” which is a law of the mathematics of statistics (for clarity, the Examiner does not consider this as a law of nature, rather its akin to other mathematical laws, e.g. the commutative, associate, and distributive laws/principles of algebra, e.g. (2*3)*3 = 3*3*2 for an example of the associative law of multiplication).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
incrementing a timepoint for the DES until a stopping criterion is met; - a mental process, of a person simply providing a mental judgement of a timescale with time increments/points, e.g. from 0 to 60 seconds a person would readily be able to judge to use 1 second timepoints, e.g. 1 second, 2 second, etc.
at increments of the timepoint, invoking event modules of the plurality of event modules to process members of the at least one population class in accord with flow of the members of the at least one population class amongst the event modules of the plurality of event modules as defined by the APIs; - a mental process, but for the mere instructions to do it on a computer, e.g. a person mentally observing information about members of a population class, e.g. “a patient (i.e. a member of a patient class) and a surgeon (i.e., a member of a doctor class) and/or a hospital (i.e. a member of a medical institution class)” (¶ 34), and mentally evaluating said information so as to process said information, e.g. suppose it’s a “surgery event”, a person would readily be able to mentally evaluate so as to determine/” define that the patient processed by the surgery event then flows to a post-operative recovery event and to a surgery reimbursement claim request event.” As discussed in ¶ 34, but for the mere instruction to do this analysis on a computer/in a computer environment
wherein the DES method simulates a system represented by a system model having parameters with associated probability density functions (PDFs), and the non- transitory storage medium further stores instructions readable and executable by the electronic processor to perform M outer loops where M is an integer greater than