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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
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 .
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/04/2025. In the current amendments, claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are amended, and claims 21-24 are newly presented. Claims 1-6 and 8-24 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-6 and 8-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“associate a function of the product to a failure condition to define a first association”
“associate a hazard assessment with the failure condition to define a second association”
“associate the hazard assessment with a safety requirement to define a third association”
“generate the functional hazard assessment model based on the first, second, and third associations”
“arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment model based on a completeness metric”
“determine whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in determining whether the product meets the requirements”
“update a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass associating a product function to a failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a function of a product to a condition of failure), associating a hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure), associating the hazard assessment with a safety requirement (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate the hazard assessment with a requirement for safety), generating the functional hazard assessment model based on the three associations (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the three associations to generate a functional hazard assessment model); arranging artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model with an arrangement including one file format to be converted to a target file format (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can arrange artifacts that are associated with the functional hazard assessment model, the arrangement including a format of the articles to be converted to a target format); determining if the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the arranged artifacts to determine whether or not the product meets requirements); updating a child model of the functional hazard assessment based on whether the product meets the requirements (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update a functional hazard assessment child model based on whether or not the product meets the requirements); and causing an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a product feature to allow the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“machine-readable instructions”
“at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions”
“a computer memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine an existence of an error associated with data of the functional hazard assessment model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining the existence of an error associated with the functional hazard assessment model data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error with the data of the functional hazard assessment model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“correct the error”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass correcting the error in the functional hazard assessment data(corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can correct the determined error in the data of the functional hazard assessment).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 2 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“parse file types to generate the artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass parsing file types to generate artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate artifacts (e.g. documents, files, data) associated with the functional hazard assessment model by parsing file types).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the hazard assessment includes a first hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of associating a hazard assessment with a failure condition. The limitation of claim 5 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the hazard assessment comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses associating a hazard assessment comprising a first hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure). The limitations:
“further associate the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment to define a fourth association”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass defining a fourth association by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the fourth association includes a parent-child relationship”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 5 of associating first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association. The limitation of claim 6 further limits the limitation of claim 5 by further defining what the fourth association includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses defining a fourth association including a parent-child relationship by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association including a parent-child relationship).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 5 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“associating, …, a function of the product to a failure condition to define a first association”
“associating, …, a hazard assessment with the failure condition to define a second association”
“associating, …, a safety requirement with the hazard assessment to define a third association”
“generating, …, the functional hazard assessment based on the first, second, and third associations”
“arranging, …, artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment based on a completeness metric”
“determining, …, whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arrangement of the artifacts enables reduced computational utilization in the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“updating, …, a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“causing, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass associating a product function to a failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a function of a product to a condition of failure), associating a hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure), associating the hazard assessment with a safety requirement (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate the hazard assessment with a requirement for safety), generating the functional hazard assessment based on the three associations (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the three associations to generate a functional hazard assessment); arranging artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model with an arrangement including one file format to be converted to a target file format (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can arrange artifacts that are associated with the functional hazard assessment model, the arrangement including a format of the articles to be converted to a target format); determining if the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the arranged artifacts to determine whether or not the product meets requirements); updating a child model of the functional hazard assessment based on whether the product meets the requirements (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update a functional hazard assessment child model based on whether or not the product meets the requirements); and causing an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a product feature to allow the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with at least one processor”
“a computer memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“causing, …, storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the hazard assessment includes a first hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 8 of associating a hazard assessment with a failure condition. The limitation of claim 9 further limits the limitation of claim 8 by further defining what the hazard assessment comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses associating a hazard assessment comprising a first hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure). The limitation:
“associating, …, the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment to define a fourth association”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass defining a fourth association by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with the at least one processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 8 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the fourth association includes a parent-child relationship”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 9 of associating first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association. The limitation of claim 10 further limits the limitation of claim 9 by further defining what the fourth association includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses defining a fourth association including a parent-child relationship by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association including a parent-child relationship).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 9 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“performing, …, an assessment of data of the functional hazard assessment to determine an existence of an error”
“correcting, …, the data in response to the determined existence of the error”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error by performing an assessment of the functional hazard assessment data); and correcting the data in response to determining the existence of the error (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can correct the data of the functional hazard assessment in response to determining an error).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with the at least one processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 8 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the error includes incomplete associations of data associated with the functional hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 11 of performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error. The limitation of claim 12 further limits the limitation of claim 11 by further defining what the error includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error, the error including incomplete associations of data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error comprising incomplete associations of data by performing an assessment of the functional hazard assessment data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 11 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“parsing, …, file types to generate the artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass parsing file types to generate artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate artifacts (e.g. documents, files, data) associated with the functional hazard assessment model by parsing file types).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with the at least one processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 8 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generate the functional hazard assessment based on first, second, and third associations, the first association to associate a function of the product to a failure condition, the second association to associate a hazard assessment with the failure condition, the third association to associate a safety requirement with the hazard assessment”
“determine an existence of an error associated with data of the functional hazard assessment”
“correct the error during generation of the functional hazard assessment”
“arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment based on a completeness metric”
“determine whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“update a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating the functional hazard assessment based on the three associations, the first association associating a product function to a failure condition, the second association associating a hazard assessment with the failure condition, and the third association associating the hazard assessment with a safety requirement (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a function of a product to a condition of failure, associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure, associate the hazard assessment with a requirement for safety, and use the three associations to generate a functional hazard assessment); determining the existence of an error associated with the data of the functional hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error with functional hazard assessment data); correcting the data in response to determining the existence of the error during generation of the functional hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can correct the error during generation of the functional hazard assessment in response to determining an error); arranging artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model with an arrangement including one file format to be converted to a target file format (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can arrange artifacts that are associated with the functional hazard assessment model, the arrangement including a format of the articles to be converted to a target format); determining if the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the arranged artifacts to determine whether or not the product meets requirements); updating a child model of the functional hazard assessment based on whether the product meets the requirements (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update a functional hazard assessment child model based on whether or not the product meets the requirements); and causing an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a product feature to allow the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“machine-readable instructions”
“at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions”
“a computer memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“parse file types to generate the artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass parsing file types to generate artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate artifacts (e.g. documents, files, data) associated with the functional hazard assessment model by parsing file types).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 14 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the hazard assessment includes a first hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 14 of associating a hazard assessment with a failure condition. The limitation of claim 16 further limits the limitation of claim 14 by further defining what the hazard assessment comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses associating a hazard assessment comprising a first hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure). The limitations:
“associate the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment to define a fourth association”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass defining a fourth association by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 14 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the fourth association includes a parent-child relationship”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 16 of associating first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association. The limitation of claim 17 further limits the limitation of claim 16 by further defining what the fourth association includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses defining a fourth association including a parent-child relationship by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association including a parent-child relationship).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating, …, the functional hazard assessment based on first, second, and third associations, the first association to associate a function of the product to a failure condition, the second association to associate a hazard assessment with the failure condition, the third association to associate a safety requirement with the hazard assessment”
“performing, …, an assessment of data of the functional hazard assessment to determine an existence of an error”
“correcting, …, the data in response to the determined existence of the error”
“arranging, …, artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment based on a completeness metric”
“determining, …, whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“updating, …, a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”
“causing, …, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating the functional hazard assessment based on the three associations, the first association associating a product function to a failure condition, the second association associating a hazard assessment with the failure condition, and the third association associating the hazard assessment with a safety requirement (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a function of a product to a condition of failure, associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure, associate the hazard assessment with a requirement for safety, and use the three associations to generate a functional hazard assessment); performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error by performing an assessment of the functional hazard assessment data); correcting the data in response to determining the existence of the error (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can correct the data of the functional hazard assessment in response to determining an error); arranging artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model with an arrangement including one file format to be converted to a target file format (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can arrange artifacts that are associated with the functional hazard assessment model, the arrangement including a format of the articles to be converted to a target format); determining if the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the arranged artifacts to determine whether or not the product meets requirements); updating a child model of the functional hazard assessment based on whether the product meets the requirements (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update a functional hazard assessment child model based on whether or not the product meets the requirements); and causing an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a product feature to allow the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with at least one processor”
“a computer memory”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“causing, …, storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein at least one of: the hazard assessment includes a first hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 18 of associating a hazard assessment with a failure condition. The limitation of claim 19 further limits the limitation of claim 18 by further defining what the hazard assessment comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses associating a hazard assessment comprising a first hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate a hazard assessment with the condition for failure). The limitation:
“associating, …, the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment to define a fourth association”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass defining a fourth association by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association). The limitation:
“the error includes incomplete associations of data associated with the functional hazard assessment”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 18 of performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error. The limitation of claim 19 further limits the limitation of claim 18 by further defining what the error includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses performing an assessment of the data of the functional hazard assessment to determine the existence of an error, the error including incomplete associations of data (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine if there is an error comprising incomplete associations of data by performing an assessment of the functional hazard assessment data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“by executing instructions with the at least one processor”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 18 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation:
“wherein the fourth association includes a parent-child relationship”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 19 of associating first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association. The limitation of claim 20 further limits the limitation of claim 19 by further defining what the fourth association includes. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses defining a fourth association including a parent-child relationship by associating the first hazard assessment with a second hazard assessment (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can associate first and second hazard assessments to define a fourth association including a parent-child relationship).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 19 of a processor, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“adjust a requirement data of a file corresponding to the product”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass adjusting requirement data of a file corresponding to the product (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust requirement data of a file corresponding to the product).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more of the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“adjust a data structure corresponding to the feature of the product based on the updated child model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass adjusting, based on the updated child model, a data structure corresponding to the feature of the product (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a data structure corresponding to the feature of the product based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more of the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“update product requirement data of the feature based on the updated child model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating, based on the updated child model, product requirement data of the feature (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update product requirement data of the feature based on the updated child model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more of the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to an apparatus, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determine a relationship between the updated child model and the functional hazard assessment model, and wherein the adjustment of the feature is based on the relationship”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining a relationship between the updated child model and the functional hazard assessment model, the adjustment of the feature being based on the relationship (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine a relationship, which is used for adjusting the feature, between the updated child model and the functional hazard assessment model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“one or more of the at least one processor circuit”
As drafted, is an additional element that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a processor circuit, instructions, and memory, as drafted, are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. In addition, the additional element of “storage … in a computer memory” amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity for storing data. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are directed to patent eligible subject matter as demonstrated by referring to the newly revised guidelines, which are properly applied below. Independent claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception and, thus, satisfies Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the test outlined in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. Moreover, even assuming a judicial exception were recited in independent claim 1, independent claim 1 recites a practical application of the judicial exception and, thus, satisfies Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the test outlined in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. Furthermore, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and, thus, satisfies Step 2B of the test outlined in the MPEP. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. @ 101 must be withdrawn.
Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A
Under Prong One of Step 2A, the Office must: (a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the Examiner believes recite(s) an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) fall(s) within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas as enumerated in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance …
In the instant case, the Office action alleges that the claims are directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to "mental processes." Office action, p. 3. Thus, of these three different groupings, it appears that the rejection attempts to identify claim 1 as allegedly falling under category (c) above, but does not allege that the claims recite a mathematical concept under category (a) or a method of organizing human activity under category (b). However, no mental process is recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus to "arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment model based on a completeness metric," "cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement," and "cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements." As such, the allegation that claim 1 is directed to a mental process is clearly mistaken. Therefore, contrary to the assertions in the Office action, claim 1 does not recite judicial exception. As a result, the Office has not properly identified any abstract idea set forth in the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong One of Revised Step 2A.
Prong 2 of Revised Step 2A
Moreover, although the Office action has not identified a proper judicial exception, even if it had, claim 1 provides a practical application of any judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on any such judicial exception.
For example, claim 1 of the instant application sets forth at least one processor circuit to "associate a hazard assessment with the failure condition to define a second association; associate the hazard assessment with a safety requirement to define a third association; generate the functional hazard assessment model based on the first, second, and third associations; arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment model based on a completeness metric; cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement; determine whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in determining whether the product meets the requirements; update a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements; and cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements."
The claimed apparatus is structured to implement a practical solution to the problem of driving or defining features of a product to meet safety requirements and/or system requirements associated with the product. (Specification, paras. [0025], [0054]). By adjusting and/or driving product features during development of the product, disclosed examples can ensure that "requirements are captured and/or complete." (Specification, para. [0050]). The claimed invention generates and updates a model for use in redefining features of the product (Specification, paras. [0025], [0062]) during earlier stages of development of the product, thus reducing the need for rework of the product at subsequent stages of development and, as a result, reducing utilization of computational and/or manufacturing resources associated with such rework. By enabling automatic adjustment or redefining of features of a product based on an updated model, the claimed invention can also "reduce (e.g., eliminate) time-consuming and inaccurate manual associations." (Specification, para. [0019]). As a result, the claimed invention increases energy efficiency and reduces utilization of computational resources, thus improving the operation of a machine. Further, causing adjustment of a feature of a product, as set forth in claim 1, can be highly advantageous in producing a product that meets safety and/or system requirements and is highly beyond what can be performed by human with a pen and a paper.
While claim 1 offers an unmistakably practical application of technology, it also provides no risk whatsoever of pre-empting the use of any judicial exception. Rather, it is unambiguously limited to a practical application of technology that provides a meaningful limit on any judicial exception that could be imagined as present, and can in no way be reasonably seen to be a mere drafting effort seeking to monopolize any judicial exception. As such, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent eligible at Prong Two of Revised Step 2A. Thus, the § 101 rejection is in error.
Step 2B -Claim 1 Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea
Even assuming an abstract idea is present in claim 1 and claim 1 is not directed to a
practical application, which are points not conceded, claim 1 includes an "additional element (or combination of elements) [that] is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field." MPEP 2106.05(d).
In BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that a claim directed to a content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network is patent eligible. The BASCOM court considered whether a claim including an abstract idea included additional elements amounting to significantly more when the claim limitations were considered in combination (827 F.3d at 1349), and agreed that "an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea" (Id. at 1352). The Bascom court found eligibility based on the particular arrangement of elements claimed.
The claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. Such claims would not contain an inventive concept. See CyberSource Corp. V Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reasoning that the use of the Internet to verify a credit card transaction does not meaningfully add to the abstract idea of verifying the transaction). Nor do the claims preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet; rather, they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content. Filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, and the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphasis added). The unique, ordered combination of elements in BASCOM set forth a unique interaction between a remote ISP server and a client computer. In finding patent eligibility, the BASCOM court explains that the arrangement of elements improved a technical field. Id.
Claim 1 of the instant application contains a unique, ordered combination of elements that set forth a system that generates, stores, and displays data to enable computationally and/or time efficient analysis thereof. By organizing and/or arranging artifacts in a data storage in a manner that facilitates later auditing and/or analysis thereof (Specification, para. [0036]), the particular arrangement of elements in claim 1 of the instant application results in a technical improvement by improving the efficiency of using a computing device by generating computationally efficient data for subsequent analysis (Specification, para. [0073]), thus utilizing fewer computational resources (e.g., memory, power, and/or bandwidth) associated with the computing device. Further, the particular arrangement of elements in claim 1 causes, based on an updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of a product to enable the product to meet requirements. As a result, the particular arrangement of elements in claim 1 enables errors in the product design to be corrected in earlier stages of development to reduce the need for rework of the product at subsequent stages, thus conserving manufacturing and/or computational resources. Further, the particular arrangement of elements of claim 1 causes an adjustment of product features based on an updated child model.
Further, the USPTO's August 4, 2025, memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 expressly cautions examiners not to expand the "mental process" grouping to encompass claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. See Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims under 35 U.S.C.§101 (Aug. 4, 2025), pp. 2-3. The memorandum also reminds that a subject matter eligibility rejection should only be made when it is more likely than not (i.e., by more than a 50% likelihood) that the claim is ineligible. Id. at p. 5. Here, the present claims recite operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including causing an adjustment of a feature of the product based on an updated child model. The human mind is not equipped to adjust a feature based on an updated child model. Accordingly, consistent with the USPTO's 2025 memorandum, the claims do not recite a "mental process" and should not be characterized as abstract ideas.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom set forth patent eligible subject matter under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. Likewise, independent claims 8, 14, and 18, and all claims depending respectively therefrom, set forth patent eligible subject matter under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. Therefore, withdrawal of the § 101 rejections of independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 18, and all claims depending respectively therefrom, is requested” (Remarks Pages 11-17).
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has made general assertions that claim 1 recites claim elements that are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if the claim elements are directed to an abstract idea, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite elements that cannot reasonably be characterized as covering mental processes or reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Regarding the “cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses causing an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can adjust a product feature to allow the product to meet the requirements based on the updated child model). Furthermore, regarding the “arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment model based on a completeness metric”, “determine whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in determining whether the product meets the requirements”, and “update a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements” limitations of claim 1, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are considered abstract ideas that encompass arranging artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model with an arrangement including one file format to be converted to a target file format (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can arrange artifacts that are associated with the functional hazard assessment model, the arrangement including a format of the articles to be converted to a target format); determining if the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the arranged artifacts to determine whether or not the product meets requirements); and updating a child model of the functional hazard assessment based on whether the product meets the requirements (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can update a functional hazard assessment child model based on whether or not the product meets the requirements). Moreover, since these limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Additionally, claim 1 recites associating a product function to a failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper), associating a hazard assessment with the failure condition (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper), associating the hazard assessment with a safety requirement (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper), and generating the functional hazard assessment model based on the three associations (corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper). Since these limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Thus, it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, not the judicial exception itself. Regarding the additional elements in claim 1 of “machine-readable instructions”, “at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions”, and “a computer memory”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are high level recitations of applying a processor circuit, machine-readable instructions, and computer memory to implement the abstract ideas such that it amounts to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. As such, the recitation that the abstract ideas are to be performed with such circuitry is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Moreover, regarding the additional element in claim 1 of “cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement”, storing artifacts in computer memory based on the arrangement of the artifacts, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes storing data in memory. Therefore, as drafted, the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional element corresponds to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, instructions, and memory for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. storing data). Furthermore, the “storage … in a computer memory” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In other words, the limitations of “arrange artifacts associated with the functional hazard assessment model in an arrangement with at least one file format of the artifacts to be converted to at least one target file format to reduce computational resources for auditing of the functional hazard assessment model based on a completeness metric”, “determine whether the product meets requirements based on the arranged artifacts, wherein the arranged artifacts enable reduced computational utilization in determining whether the product meets the requirements”, “update a child model of the functional hazard assessment model based on the determination of whether the product meets the requirements”, and “cause, based on the updated child model, an adjustment to a feature of the product to enable the product to meet the requirements” are abstract ideas that are directed to a judicial exception, so they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. Additionally, the limitation of “cause storage of the artifacts in a computer memory based on the arrangement” is an additional element corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the other additional elements recited in claim 1 are directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept.
Applicant relies on the arguments above regarding independent claims 8, 14, and 18 and dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-24 therefore the response above is applicable to those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125