DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 30 January 2026. Claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are pending. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-7 and 14-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
[4] Claims 1-7 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 as presented by amendment recites:
“…processing the state of the first simulation to generate, by the at least one processor, an estimated simulation result as a simulation result for the first simulation in place of determining the simulation result by completing the first simulation according to the completion condition…”
Disclosure related to processing the state of a simulation to generate and estimated simulation result appears to be limited to paragraphs [0025] [0027] [0060] [0061] [0062] of the Specification as originally filed. The noted disclosure indicates that a gate may generate an simulation estimation as an alternative to a result that would have been obtained (paragraph [0025]), a machine learning model or separate algorithm may be used to generate a simulation estimation (paragraph [0027]), gating logic, machine learning, or an estimation model may be used to generate an estimated simulation result that is provided to an optimization model (paragraphs [0060]-[0062]). While the supportive disclosure provides conditions under which an estimated result may be generated and that the estimated result can be used by the optimization model when a simulation state is not indicative of an improvement, none of the above noted disclosure appears to provide a description of how a result is estimated by any of the listed models and/or provides an example of what constitutes an estimated result entails such that it is clear what result is used by further by the optimization process. For purposes of further examination, Examiner assumes the processing of the state of the simulation to encompass human decisions as to whether to continue an iterative simulation and further a determination to utilize a projected or extracted set of results/settings as an estimated result available for further simulations.
Claim 1 is directed to a system and includes the amended limitations of claim 14 and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7 and 15-22 inherit and fail to remedy the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through dependency and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
[5] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-7 and 14-20 (now claims 1-7 and 14-22 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-22 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to a system and a method and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1 and 14 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation and providing the optimized allocation for the purposes of management of the subject resources, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed constitutes a series of actions or steps in which resource information/data is applied using provided mathematical models to inform management of allocations of assets and personnel in a business operation, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity namely: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., directing operational behaviors in accordance with a business operational goal or objective) and managing interactions between people (e.g., following resource allocation rules or instructions, i.e., managing resources in accordance with a recommended optimization).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 14. In particular, claim 14 includes:
“…obtaining the resource management model, wherein the resource management model is associated with a set of resources of a recourse manager; obtaining the resource utilization model, wherein the resource utilization model associated with future utilization of the set of resources; generating…at least one of a resource allocation or a resource utilization… providing an indication of the resource allocation or the resource utilization for allocating the set of resources…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 14 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity namely: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., directing operational behaviors in accordance with a business operational goal or objective) and managing interactions between people (e.g., following resource allocation rules or instructions, i.e., managing resources in accordance with a recommended optimization) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 14, as presented by amendment, recites:
“…generating…based on the resourced management model and the resource utilization model, at least one of a resource allocation or a resource utilization by performing a plurality of simulations, comprising: evaluating, prior to a completion condition of a first simulation of the plurality of simulations, a state of the first simulation according to a gate to determine whether to terminate the first simulation prior to the completion condition; based on determining to terminate the first simulation prior to the completion condition, processing the state of the first simulation to generate…an estimated simulation result as a simulation result for the first simulation in place of determining the simulation result by completing the first simulation according to the completion condition, thereby concluding the first simulation more quickly as compared to completing the first simulation to generate the determined simulation result; and performing, based on the estimated simulation result of the first simulation instead of the determined simulation result, a subsequent simulation of the plurality of simulations to generate the resource allocation…”
Absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “processor” and “instructions”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to apply provided models to simulate what-if resource allocation scenarios using pen and paper. Further, a human user could be reasonably expected to be capable of monitoring a simulation, identifying a condition in which the user desires to stop the simulation, and using human mental observation and judgement, estimate a potential result of the simulation (See analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above). By extension, given an output from the modelling, one of ordinary skill would be capable of evaluating and selecting the best, i.e., optimal, result employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1 and 14 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 14 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “processor”. Claim 14 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is performed “by at least one processor” as designated in the preamble. Claim 1, directed to a system, introduces “memory” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “processor”, “memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) As presented by amendment, the “processor” is further identified as being engaged in an unspecified manner to “…processing the state of the first simulation to generate an estimated simulation result…”.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., models are obtained, simulations are performed and evaluated, simulations are terminated, a resource allocation is generated and provided for management purposes etc.) as associated with a respective “processor” or “instructions”. Beyond the general statement that a processor and instructions are used in a general manner to execute the recited functions/steps, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “instructions” of simulations using the provided mathematical models in producing the claimed result(s). A general recitation of technical elements such as a processor and instructions absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be general linking of the claimed functions to a technical environment and/or an identification of generic computing technology utilized in performing the claimed functions/steps. The technology as engaged is solely identified as: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., obtaining models); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource data or information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., apply provided models to simulate what-if resource allocation scenarios, monitoring a simulation, identifying a condition in which the user desires to stop the simulation, estimate a potential result of the simulation (See analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above) and evaluating allocations and selecting the optimal result) (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, claim 14 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0063]-[0069]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
As presented by amendment, the claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor”, “memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) As presented by amendment, the “processor” is further identified as being engaged in an unspecified manner to “…processing the state of the first simulation to generate an estimated simulation result…”.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., obtaining models); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource data or information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., apply provided models to simulate what-if resource allocation scenarios, monitoring a simulation, identifying a condition in which the user desires to stop the simulation, estimate a potential result of the simulation (See analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above) and evaluating allocations and selecting the optimal result).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claim 1, directed to an apparatus/system for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 15-22, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[6] Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0228309) in view of Zhu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0378070).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 14, Moll discloses a method for generating, by at least one processor, a simulation according to a resource management model and a resource utilization model, comprising: obtaining the resource management model, wherein the resource management model is associated with a set of resources of a resource manager (Moll; paragraphs [0054]-[0056] [0087]-[0090]; See at least resource sizing model. See further resource sizing model. See further resource sizing model directs staff and machine pools as inputs to allocation model); obtaining the resource utilization model, wherein the resource utilization model associated with future utilization of the set of resources (Moll; paragraphs [0054]-[0056] [0083]-[0086]; See at least resource allocation model. See further resource allocation model executed based input resource pool inputs to iteratively determine resource allocation for a given set of resources); generating, by the at least one processor and based on the resource management model and the resource utilization model, at least one of a resource allocation or a resource utilization by performing a plurality of simulations (Moll; paragraphs [0043] [0056] [0084]-[0087] [0090] [0106]; See at least simulations and MIP solving of models to generate sizing and allocation recommendations. See further setting and iteratively relaxing goals and constraints to improve models and optimize allocations); providing an indication of the resource allocation or the resource utilization for management of the set of resources (Moll; paragraphs [0043]-[0046] [0065]-[0066] [0077]-[0078] [0084]; See at least resource allocation and assignment outputs).
Claim 1 has been amended to further specify that the previously recited “evaluating” includes “evaluating, prior to a completion condition of a first simulation of the plurality of simulations, a state of the first simulation according to a gate to determine whether to terminate the first simulation prior to the completion condition…”.
With respect to this element, while Moll discloses that the iterative process includes execution of an optimizer to generate new resource allocations based on state data and further makes determination as to whether to continue or terminate that optimization process based on set objectives and criteria (Moll; paragraphs [0106] and [0107]; See at least iterative generation of new resources allocations and see determination of whether to continue the optimization, i.e., simulation, based on number of iterations and/or a value of an objective function increasing by more than a desired percentage in a most recent optimization), Moll fails to explicitly state that the determination as to whether to continue or terminate the optimization process according to the gate including either a number of iterations or a determination of convergence or that the termination occurs “prior to a completion condition of a first simulation”.
However, as evidenced by Zhu et al., it is well-known in the art to define multiple termination criteria in an iterative simulation environment for resource allocation (Zhu et al.; paragraphs [0074]-[0077]; See at least two stopping conditions applied to the same iterative simulation: (1) stopping condition based on a calculated number of iterations, e.g., “N simulations”, and (2) an objective cost factor delta threshold). Zhu et al. further disclose that when the cost factor delta is below a threshold, it is indicative that further optimization is not required and the settings of the present simulation are used and the iterative loop need not further continue even though not all of the “N simulations” have been performed (Zhu et al.; paragraph [0077]; See stopping iterations without reaching the termination condition of “N simulations” and adopting the present settings for the stopped simulation, i.e., a form of evaluating the state of the simulation and estimating a simulation result generated in response to a gate stoppage of the iterative simulation prior the a completion condition being met).
Zhu further teaches the amended limitations of claim 1 including “…based on determining to terminate the first simulation prior to the completion condition, processing the state of the first simulation to generate, by the at least one processor, an estimated simulation result as a simulation result for the first simulation in place of determining the simulation result by completing the first simulation according to the completion condition, thereby concluding the first simulation more quickly as compared to completing the first simulation to generate the determined simulation result…” (Zhu et al.; paragraph [0077]; See stopping iterations without reaching the termination condition of “N simulations” and adopting the present settings for the stopped simulation, i.e., a form of evaluating the state of the simulation and estimating a simulation result generated in response to a gate, e.g., results below the delta cost threshold, prior the a completion condition “N simulations” being met).
Claim 14 has been further amended to include “…and performing, based on the estimated simulation result of the first simulation instead of the determined simulation result, a subsequent simulation of the plurality of simulations to generate the resource allocation…”.
With respect to this element, the specification provides minimal guidance as to what the estimation result comprises and/or how it would be used in a subsequent simulation (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above). The estimated simulation result and the usability of the result in subsequent simulation when considered in light of the supportive disclosure, are reasonably met by the adoption of parameters from an iteration meeting the best cost factor delta as taught by Zhu are reasonably an “estimated result” which is usable for a resource allocation or a basis for further simulations, given that the simulation process of Zhu is iterative and continual and starts with a first simulation iteration using user determined initial settings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the termination criteria for iterative simulations features of Moll by further including specified adoption of settings of a terminated simulation iteration as a result of the simulation as taught by Zhu et al. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of optimizing resource allocations using an iterative simulation process. As Moll disclose the use of termination criteria for iterative simulations in the context of a system and method for optimizing resource allocations using an iterative simulation process and Zhu et al. similarly discloses the utility of adoption of settings of a terminated simulation iteration as a result of the simulation in the context of a system and method for optimizing resource allocations using an iterative simulation process, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of realizing cost and efficiency gains by modelling resource allocations while minimizing computational requirements Zhu et al.; paragraph [0077]).
With respect to claim 15, Moll discloses a method wherein: the plurality of simulations are a series of optimization iterations; and each optimization iteration has an associated optimization candidate (Moll; paragraphs [0043] [0056] [0084]-[0087] [0090] [0106]; See at least simulations and MIP solving of models to generate sizing and allocation recommendations).
With respect to claim 16, Moll discloses a method wherein the generating further comprises, for each optimization iteration, generating a simulation result based on the associated optimization candidate (Moll; paragraphs [0084]-[0088] [0106]-[0109]; See at least iterative solving of allocation recommendations. See further iterative optimization of resource allocations using “optimizer”).
With respect to claim 17, Moll discloses a method wherein generating the simulation result comprises: evaluating a state of another simulation of the plurality of simulations according to the gate to determine whether to terminate the another simulation (Moll; paragraphs [0106] and [0107]; See at least iterative generation of new resources allocations and see determination of whether to continue the optimization, i.e., simulation, based on number of iterations and/or a value of an objective function increasing by more than a desired percentage in a most recent optimization, i.e., a gate); and based on determining not to terminate the another simulation, completing the simulation to generate a simulation result for another simulation (Moll; paragraphs [0106] and [0107]; a determination of continuing the optimization process is inherently a decision to complete the optimization/simulation, at least as presently claimed).
With respect to claim 18, Moll discloses a method wherein generating the resource allocation comprises generating an optimized resource allocation having an increased likelihood that the set of resources will match the future utilization of the set of resources (Moll; paragraphs [0087]-[0090] [0106]-[0107]; See at least optimization of resource allocation and sizing in anticipation of resource requirements).
With respect to claim 19, Moll discloses a method wherein: the resource management model is associated with a resource management time period (Moll; paragraphs [0060]-[0065]; See at least see resource sizing, i.e., a set of resources, assigned or available for specified time buckets); and the resource utilization model is associated with a resource utilization time period (Moll; paragraphs [0084]-[0086] [0099]-[0101]; See at least time buckets and resource assignment).
With respect to claim 20, Moll discloses a method wherein: the resource management model is associated with historical data for the set of resources (Moll; paragraphs [0027] [0060]-[0065]; See at least resource table constructed from availability information including current and past assignment data); and the resource utilization model is associated with an estimate of the future utilization of the set of resources (Moll; paragraphs [0097] [0106]; See at least resource availability determined based on past and current resource assignments. See further, assignments for future “time buckets”, i.e., future utilization).
With respect to (newly added) claim 21, as noted above, while Moll discloses stopping a simulation, Moll fails to explicitly state that the determination as to whether to continue or terminate the optimization process according to the gate including either a number of iterations or a determination of convergence or that the termination occurs “prior to a completion condition of a first simulation”.
However, Zhu et al. disclose a system wherein the completion condition comprises at least one of determining a threshold number of iterations has occurred or determining the plurality of simulations has converged (Zhu et al.; paragraphs [0074]-[0077]; See at least two stopping conditions applied to the same iterative simulation: (1) stopping condition based on a calculated number of iterations, e.g., “N simulations”, and (2) an objective cost factor delta threshold).
Claims 1-7 and 21, as presented by amendment, substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 14-20 and 22 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Moll discloses enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions (See at least Moll Figs. 2-4 and associated disclosure regarding data models and simulator). Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 21 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 14-20 and 22.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 14-20 (now claims 1-7 and 14-22 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 30 July 2025, Applicant provides the following remarks:
"…the Patent Office issued additional guidance…in which the Patent Office emphasizes the ‘menta process’ exception include “observations, evaluations, judgement, and opinions’ as compared to instances ‘when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s)…the August 2025 Memo noted ‘the mental process grouping is not without limits’ issuing a reminder ‘not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind’…"
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the mental process grouping has not be expanded in the context of the instant rejection/application. Examiner maintains that the claims as presented remain directed to ineligible subject matter. Under Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04):
Examiner respectfully maintains that the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of modelling an optimal resource utilization/allocation for a business operation and providing the optimized allocation for the purposes of management of the subject resources, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity and further include limitations reciting to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper as reiterated in the maintained rejection below.
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “processor” and “instructions”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to apply provided models to simulate what-if resource allocation scenarios using pen and paper. Further, a human user could be reasonably expected to be capable of monitoring a simulation, identifying a condition in which the user desires to stop the simulation, and using human mental observation and judgement, estimate a potential result of the simulation (See analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above). By extension, given an output from the modelling, one of ordinary skill would be capable of evaluating and selecting the best, i.e., optimal, result employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Applicant’s remaining remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 30 July 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Action(s) mailed 30 July 2025, 11 October 2024, and 2 January 2024, incorporated in their entirety in response.
[ii] In response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 14-20 (now claims 1-7 and 14-22 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 30 July 2026, Applicant remarks:
“…Applicant respectfully submits the neither Moll nor Zhu teach of suggest at least both ‘a completion condition’ with a corresponding ‘determined estimation result’ and ‘a gate’ with which ‘a state of the first simulation’ is processes to generate ‘an estimated simulation result as a simulation result for the first simulation in place of determining the simulation result by completing the first simulation’……”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Moll discloses an iterative simulation process in which resource sizing recommendations and derivative resource allocation and assignment recommendations are generated (Moll; paragraphs [0043] [0056] [0084]-[0087]), and Moll further discloses that the iterative process includes execution of an optimizer to generate new resource allocations based on state data and further makes determination as to whether to continue or terminate that optimization process based on set objectives and criteria (Moll; paragraphs [0106] and [0107]; See at least iterative generation of new resources allocations and see determination of whether to continue the optimization, i.e., simulation, based on number of iterations and/or a value of an objective function increasing by more than a desired percentage in a most recent optimization). Moll fails to explicitly state that the determination as to whether to continue or terminate the optimization process according to the gate occurs “prior to a completion condition of a first simulation”.
Zhu et al. disclose defining multiple termination criteria in an iterative simulation environment for resource allocation (Zhu et al.; paragraphs [0074]-[0077]; See at least two stopping conditions applied to the same iterative simulation: (1) stopping condition based on a calculated number of iterations, e.g., “N simulations”, and (2) an objective cost factor delta threshold). Zhu et al. further disclose that when the cost factor delta is below a threshold, it is indicative that further optimization is not required and the settings of the present simulation are used and the iterative loop need not further continue even though not all of the “N simulations” have been performed (Zhu et al.; paragraph [0077]; See stopping iterations without reaching the termination condition of “N simulations” and adopting the present settings for the stopped simulation, i.e., a form of evaluating the state of the simulation and estimating a simulation result generated in response to a gate stoppage of the iterative simulation prior the a completion condition being met).
Zhu further teaches the amended limitations of claim 1 including “…based on determining to terminate the first simulation prior to the completion condition, processing the state of the first simulation to generate, by the at least one processor, an estimated simulation result as a simulation result for the first simulation in place of determining the simulation result by completing the first simulation according to the completion condition, thereby concluding the first simulation more quickly as compared to completing the first simulation to generate the determined simulation result…” (Zhu et al.; paragraph [0077]; See stopping iterations without reaching the termination condition of “N simulations” and adopting the present settings for the stopped simulation, i.e., a form of evaluating the state of the simulation and estimating a simulation result generated in response to a gate, e.g., results below the delta cost threshold, prior the a completion condition “N simulations” being met).
As remarked upon by Applicant, the amended limitations further include a step of “…and performing, based on the estimated simulation result of the first simulation instead of the determined simulation result, a subsequent simulation of the plurality of simulations to generate the resource allocation…”.
With respect to this element, the specification provides minimal guidance as to what the estimation result comprises and/or how it would be used in a subsequent simulation (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above). The estimated simulation result and the usability of the result in subsequent simulation when considered in light of the supportive disclosure, are reasonably met by the adoption of parameters from an iteration meeting the best cost factor delta as taught by Zhu are reasonably an “estimated result” which is usable for a resource allocation or a basis for further simulations, given that the simulation process of Zhu is iterative and continual and starts with a first simulation iteration using user determined initial settings.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khadivi Heris et al., RESOURCE PLANNING FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0292434, paragraphs [0068]-[0070]: Relevant Teachings: Khadivi Heris discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions performing a reinforcement learning process to train resource allocation models. The inventive system/method employ stopping/gating criteria including number of iterations and determination of convergence.
Krishnan et al., RESOURCE DATA MODELING, FORECASTING AND SIMULATION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0027744, paragraphs [0044]-[0048]: Relevant Teachings: Krishnan discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for resource allocation based on predicted task volumes. The inventive system/method employ a simulation process that applies iterative simulations until objective criteria are met within short and long timeframes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights