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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on November 13, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a platform for predicting and measuring construction and erection risks of a construction project. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a platform for predicting and measuring construction and erection risks of a construction project by obtaining data, adjusting “the technical cost measures”, quantifying the “individual risk measures”, and aggregating “the technical cost measures” using the obtained data, and then generating advices, the claim recites the following limitations: capturing technical parameters, user and market-specific working parameters…, measuring parameters of the specific components of the construction and measuring parameters of the constructional environments…by comparing them with simulated values…, capturing user-specific pricing logics, the working parameters…, a first trigger stage identifying and capturing objective cost measures triggered by the objective risk parameter values and the cover component parameters…, a second trigger stage capturing market-specific prize measures triggered by the first and second working parameter values…, receiving user-defined values objective or working parameters…, adjusting the technical cost measures based on the first working parameters…, aggregating the technical cost measures with the second working parameters…, and generating the risk-tailored expert advices to the user with optimized cover component parameter values…, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk.
The claim recites the steps of: capturing technical parameters, user and market-specific working parameters…, measuring parameters of the specific components of the construction and measuring parameters of the constructional environments…by comparing them with simulated values…, capturing user-specific pricing logics, the working parameters…, a first trigger stage identifying and capturing objective cost measures triggered by the objective risk parameter values and the cover component parameters…, a second trigger stage capturing market-specific prize measures triggered by the first and second working parameter values…, receiving user-defined values objective or working parameters…, adjusting the technical cost measures based on the first working parameters…, aggregating the technical cost measures with the second working parameters…, and generating the risk-tailored expert advices to the user with optimized cover component parameter values…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; cover component parameter values are dynamically adjustable by the user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values.” The claim also recites that the steps of “capturing, measuring, receiving, adjusting, aggregating, and generating” are performed by a processing circuitry.
The additional elements “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; cover component parameter values are dynamically adjustable by a user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the computer functionality, improvements to the physical measuring devices/sensors/smart sensors/optical fiber sensors/piezoelectric sensors/wireless sensors, improvements to the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying information. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “capturing, measuring, receiving, adjusting, aggregating, and generating”, are recited as being performed by the processing circuitry. The processing circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processing circuitry, a memory, and software components that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; cover component parameter values are dynamically adjustable by a user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; cover component parameter values are dynamically adjustable by a user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processing circuitry to perform limitations “capturing, measuring, receiving, adjusting, aggregating, and generating”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
The Berkheimer Memorandum mandates that an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
(1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(3) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
(4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), which satisfies the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2144.03.
In this case, the present Specification described in figure 1 and pages 17-18 of using general purpose computer devices and available commercial products to perform the method. Thus, the applicant provides (1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5-18, and 21, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, the claims recite the additional elements “the monitoring and reporting interface that comprises a portfolio management interface to analyze and monitor a portfolio of construction/erection risks exposed projects …” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement of the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein selecting the objects for the project by the received user-defined values comprises defining a scope of the project to be quoted…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting to process a rating process, as a result of applying a set of rules, to generate a rating analysis, and to output one or more of underwriting hints for the project…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting (i) applying one or more triggers to test for values of one or more data items that represent risk-related value…; (ii) activating a rule based structure on a test result of one or more of the triggers to generate the one or more underwriting hints to be outputted…; (iii) providing the rating analysis…; (iv) applying one or more additional triggers to test for values of data parameters outputted from the rating analysis…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claim recites the additional element the outputted underwriting hints to a monitoring interface, which is mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement of the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting to process a rating process, as a result of applying a set of rules, to generate a rating analysis, and to output one or more of underwriting hints for the project…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting processes the rating process by passing values for characteristics that are valid for an entire project …, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim recites the additional element wherein the persistent storage further stores system-related core data with at least software application data at least comprising messages, prompts, user preferences, application settings and logging/tracing information, which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement of the storage, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the technical parameters comprise at least data types of industries, data types of projects, data types of objects, a standard subset of types of objects for a type of project…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further wherein the working parameters comprise user generatable data restricted to read, write, and modify access by the user only.…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further wherein the technical parameter include at least a technical characteristic, an insurance related characteristic, a type of project, and a type of object…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim recites the additional elements wherein the advice engine comprises a machine-based intelligence comprising a machine-learning based structure or a neural-network-based structure generating the user-specific expert advices, wherein the machine-based intelligence in a learning mode assesses optimized underlying policy wording and clauses of historical projects together with optimized user-specific cover component parameter values…, which provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating the user-specific expert advices” and does not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although these additional elements limit the identified judicial exceptions “generating the user-specific expert advices”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the optimized user- specific cover component parameter values and the corresponding prizing parameter values are generated by a rating process…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the optimized user- specific cover component parameter values and the corresponding prizing parameter values…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the capturing of the technical parameters comprises at least parameter values for selecting a type of industry associated with the project.…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the risk-tailored expert advices comprise parameters values providing underwriting hints, which indicate severity of a risk associated with the project.…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 21, the claim recites the additional element in case the construction structure corresponds to the steel frame, a tri-sensor loading plate and a Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensor are physically located on the steel frame, which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement of a tri-sensor/ Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensor, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “a predictive system, implemented by processing circuitry, that comprises a persistent storage that includes at least a data-structure for capturing technical parameters, and user-and market-specific working parameters, wherein, as a real-time monitoring procedure, measuring parameters of specific components of the construction and measuring parameters of constructional environments acquired by the digital platform; wherein the technical parameters comprise (i) objective risk parameters for at least capturing geo location parameters and/or type of industry parameters and/or type of project parameters and/or structure of the project parameters and/or duration parameters and/or involved values at risk parameters, and further comprise (ii) cover component parameters at least comprising cover type parameters and/or deductibles parameters and/or sublimit parameters, the predictive system further comprises a user interface for receiving user-defined values for one or more technical or working parameters associated with the project, wherein the risk profile of the project with a project-specific parameter set is assigned, wherein for the assigned risk profile each type of project consists of a ratable standard set of types of objects, and wherein based on the received user-defined values, relevant types of objects for the project are automatically selected by the predictive system by adding or deleting types of objects from the standard set” recited in the independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 have been fully considered and are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the pending claims are not directed to “Organizing human activity” because the features recited therein are not directed to “fundamental economic principles,” “commercial or legal interactives,” or “managing personal behavior”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recites a platform for predicting and measuring construction and erection risks of a construction project by obtaining data, adjusting “the technical cost measures”, quantifying the “individual risk measures”, and aggregating “the technical cost measures” using the obtained data, and then generating advices. The Specification, “Field of the Invention” described “The present invention relates to automated systems for measuring of and/or forecasting future occurrence probabilities and event risks, respectively, and for quantized assessment of probably associated event impacts and probabilities of losses occurring. In particular, the invention relates to automated systems and methods for risk measurement and assessment in the context of construction and engineering risks and risk accumulations associated with construction and engineering risks. More particularly, it relates to forecasting and exposure-based signaling, steering and/or operating of constructional or engineering risk-event driven or triggered systems, in general, but even more particularly systems for automation of underwriting, risk management, risk portfolio steering and signaling involving an improved identification of constructional or engineering risks, i.e. measured occurrences of construction or engineering risk events showing loss impacts, and forecast or prediction of their quantified impacts, and/or an improved ability to initiate or trigger appropriate risk mitigation measures to cope with the occurring construction or engineering risks, and/or an improved user-scenario- based modeling quantifying constructional or engineering risk exposures, and/or improved resource/risk balancing with improved risk charge/costing signaling and optimized loss-ratio handling.” The claim recites the following limitations: capturing technical parameters, user and market-specific working parameters…, measuring parameters of the specific components of the construction and measuring parameters of the constructional environments…by comparing them with simulated values…, capturing user-specific pricing logics, the working parameters…, a first trigger stage identifying and capturing objective cost measures triggered by the objective risk parameter values and the cover component parameters…, a second trigger stage capturing market-specific prize measures triggered by the first and second working parameter values…, receiving user-defined values objective or working parameters…, adjusting the technical cost measures based on the first working parameters…, aggregating the technical cost measures with the second working parameters…, and generating user-specific expert advices to a user to optimize the user-specific cover component parameters by referring to underlying policy wording and clauses, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the claims cannot be directed to a “mental process” because the claimed features cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite the steps capturing technical parameters, user and market-specific working parameters…(collecting data), measuring parameters of the specific components of the construction and measuring parameters of the constructional environments…by comparing them with simulated values…(analyzing data), capturing user-specific pricing logics, the working parameters…, a first trigger stage identifying and capturing objective cost measures triggered by the objective risk parameter values and the cover component parameters…, a second trigger stage capturing market-specific prize measures triggered by the first and second working parameter values…, receiving user-defined values objective or working parameters…(collecting data), adjusting the technical cost measures based on the first working parameters…, aggregating the technical cost measures with the second working parameters…, and generating the risk-tailored expert advices to the user with optimized cover component parameter values…(analyzing data), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The recited various structural features (for example, physical measuring devices, measuring sensors, sensors physically located on the construction structure, optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors) are additional elements and are analyzing under Step 2A-Prong 2. These recited structural features are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the computer functionality, improvements to the physical measuring devices/sensors/smart sensors/optical fiber sensors/piezoelectric sensors/wireless sensors, they are just merely used as general means for collecting information.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments the claims “provides a novel system which with technically improved infrastructure and technical means to capture the external and/or internal factors that affect construction and erection risk exposures…”, the Examiner submits that the additional elements “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; dynamically adjustable by a user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the computer functionality, improvements to the physical measuring devices/sensors/smart sensors/optical fiber sensors/piezoelectric sensors/wireless sensors, improvements to the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying information. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, the additional elements of “constructional environments acquired by the digital platform are measured by the physical measuring devices and measuring sensors; the sensors being physically located on the steel frame; the construction being of post-tensioned concrete with embedded sensors detecting damage to the concrete under loading conditions; wherein specific components of the construction are measured by sensors physically located on the construction structure; wherein constructional environments are measured by smart sensors at least including optical fiber sensors, piezoelectric sensors, and wireless sensors; an interface assessable by a user; cover component parameter values are dynamically adjustable by a user via a user interface; a monitoring and reporting interface; a user interface for receiving user-defined values” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kawamura (US 2014/0052479) discloses a method for estimating insurance risk
Grichnik (US 2007/0094048) discloses a method is provided for a medical risk stratification system.
Lancaster (US 2007/0043656) disclose a method of predictive modeling is for purposes of estimating frequencies of future loss and loss distributions for individual risks in an insurance portfolio.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-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 Boswell can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
March 3, 2026