DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims currently are not amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’). The present claims are using a generic processer to collect and analyze information and present results of the analysis on a risk map.
The Examiner submits that the present independent claim concept is the abstract idea of risk management. Gathering data regarding entities risks, analyzing that data, and communicating risk management strategies to a user. Because human have historically analyzed business risk and mitigation strategies, implementing these familiar tasks via network computers and databases (Applicant’s arguments page 9-11 “fundamental limitations defining how the system operates”) does not automatically make the concept patent eligible because the network of devices is a generic network with no technical improvement under Step 2A. As a result, the present limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner would like to respectfully note that the as amended present claims are distinguishable from DDR Holdings, where the court found the claims to be patent eligible because they were rooted in computer technology. In DDR Holdings, the court found the claims to be patent eligible because the claims recite the solution of a hybrid webpage that co-displays the look and feel of the first website with the desired content from the second website. The court found such solution to be rooted in computer technology because there was no other way to accomplish such solution. The computer was an essential part of performing the solution. On the other hand, the present claims as they are currently presented, the computer components are not an essential part in accomplishing the business process of analyzing business risk and mitigation strategies described in the claims. Although the present claims recite functions performed by a computer system, such functions are merely reciting the receiving, processing and transmitting data over a network which has been found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as stated above (please see July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility p.7).
Examiner would like to respectfully note that the as amended present claims are distinguishable from Bascom where the claims solved an internet centric problem of filtering internet content. The internet as computer technology as well as the computers are a necessary component of the claims. In other words, it is impossible to perform the claims without the use of the internet because no analog version of the problem existed prior to the internet.
On the other hand, the computing device in the present claims is not a necessary component to perform the abstract idea described in the claims. As stated above and as tedious as it can be, the present claims represent a process that can be done by a human analog that is merely linked to the computing device to solve the problem faced by entities and sub-entities of mitigating risk. The removal of the computing device from the current claims and the use of pre-internet/pre-computer technology does not affect the performance of the abstract idea of "risk management". Therefore, Bascom is distinguishable from the present claims because the present claims are merely linking the combination of the conventional and routine computer components to the abstract idea in order to solve a business problem, while in Bascom, the abstract idea is necessarily rooted in the combination of the conventional and routine computer components.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of identifying risk for an entity and providing strategy to mitigate the risk using a generic processor are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of determining risk impacting an entity and provide a strategy to overcome the risk and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
The additional element of a slider for adjusting a risk factor for at least one risk of one or more of the risks, wherein the webpage is configured to adjust the risk map upon the adjustment of the risk factor alone is not considered to be an improvement in technology as argued by Applicant.
The Examiner does not see any improved user interface by simply displaying information. The slider bar and the additional information displayed when hovering over a screen element are additional elements not specific to the claimed invention. Those additional elements are well known in the art at the time the instant invention was filed. As a result, those additional elements are not significantly more nor they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Applicant arguments, Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc. Quickly navigate through large swaths of risk information on a single, readily understandable screen).
In Data Engine Techs., LLC the claim is directed to a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets. The method provides a specific solution to then-existing technological problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets. The specification teaches that prior art computer spreadsheets were not user friendly. They required users to "master many complex and arbitrary operations." '259 patent col. 2 ll. 28–29. Users had to search through complex menu systems to find appropriate commands to execute simple computer tasks, which required users to memorize frequently needed commands. Id. at col. 2 ll. 29–45. This was burdensome and hindered a user's ability to find or access the many commands and features available in prior art computer spreadsheets, undercutting the effectiveness of the computer as a means to review and edit a spreadsheet. Id. at col. 2 ll. 45–56. This was particularly true for three-dimensional spreadsheets, which allowed users to build spreadsheet workspaces consisting of multiple two-dimensional spreadsheets, further increasing the complexity of using and navigating between multiple spreadsheets. On the other hand, the present claims only display additional information when adjusting the slider bar. The present claims therefore are distinguished from Data Engine Techs.
In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that user interface claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they “recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The court determined that the claims are directed to “a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” and that the claims do not “us[e] conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id.
Representative Claim 1 at issue in this case is silent about such an improved user interface
The Examiner asserts that the present claims are only displaying information as described above and the instant claims are distinguished form the claims of Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
As a result, and based on the above, the Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection the pending claim in the present office action.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-17 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining risk impacting an entity and provide a strategy to overcome the risk.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “identify risks and provide strategies to overcome risks, and communicate said risks and said strategies to overcome risks to a user, and accumulate information corresponding to one or more entities and at least one or more sub-entities that operates in association with that entity; identify a plurality of risks having an impact on the functioning of the entity, by processing at least a portion of the information accumulated; update risks based upon changes in risk factors; generate and communicate alerts to the entity specifying the risk; and provide strategies to the entity to overcome impacts of the risks faced by the entity, communicate said alerts to the entity specifying the risk and to provide said strategies to the entity to overcome impacts of the risks faced by the entity to visually display said alerts and said strategies, include a risk map including a geographical map, wherein representations are included in the risk map for locations of the entity and one or more sub-entities, wherein the risk map is configured to present further information about risks relating to the entity or one or more sub-entities once a respective representation within the risk map is selected, adjusting a risk factor for at least one of the risks, adjust the risk map upon the adjustment of the risk factor, and wherein the at least one risk comprises at least one of a weather related risk, a climate related risk, a political related risk, a war related risk, a risk related to the geographical location of the entity or one or more sub-entities, or a labor related risk; wherein the risk map is further configured to display entity or sub-entity risk information on the risk map”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for determining risk impacting an entity and provide a strategy to overcome the risk. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 16 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-15, and 17 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for determining risk impacting an entity and provide a strategy to overcome the risk. As a result, claims 2-15, and 17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a database connected to a network in communication with one or more entities and one or more sub-entities, wherein the one or more entities or one or more sub-entities transmit information corresponding to one or more risks, wherein the network is further connected to additional data sources including web-based application programming interfaces, structured data files, and unstructured data files, wherein the system is configured to”, “wherein the system is configured to:”, “dynamically”, “wherein the risk map includes a slider for”, “by a webpage configured”, “upon a user hovering over the specific entity or sub-entity”. when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 16 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 16 recites “the database connected to a network in communication with one or more entities and one or more sub-entities, wherein the one or more entities or one or more sub-entities transmit information corresponding to one or more risks, wherein the network is further connected to additional data sources including web-based application programming interfaces, structured data files, and unstructured data files”, “a critical risk determination module”, “a risk assessment module”, “an alerting module”, “a strategy module”, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 16 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-15, and 17 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 16. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “database” as in claims 3 and 17, “risk factor adjustment module” as in claim 17. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-15, and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system, comprising: a database connected to a network in communication with one or more entities and one or more sub-entities, wherein the one or more entities or one or more sub-entities transmit information corresponding to one or more risks, wherein the network is further connected to additional data sources including web-based application programming interfaces, structured data files, and unstructured data files, wherein the system is configured to”, “wherein the system is configured to:”, “dynamically”, “wherein the risk map includes a slider for”, “by a webpage configured”, “upon a user hovering over the specific entity or sub-entity”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 16 recites “the database connected to a network in communication with one or more entities and one or more sub-entities, wherein the one or more entities or one or more sub-entities transmit information corresponding to one or more risks, wherein the network is further connected to additional data sources including web-based application programming interfaces, structured data files, and unstructured data files”, “a critical risk determination module”, “a risk assessment module”, “an alerting module”, “a strategy module”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 16 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-15, and 17 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 16. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “database” as in claims 3 and 17, “risk factor adjustment module” as in claim 17. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-15, and 17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights