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. The amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17 and 20, they recite the limitation “at least in part” which is indefinite and vague because there is no other alternative feature claimed for "least in part" alternative limitation. The limitation “least in part" should show an alternative between features which separates two distinct options indicating that a choice must be made between them.
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.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 1) The claim 12-19 is directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. The claim 1-11 and 20 is directed to an apparatus and falls within the statutory category of machines.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
“receive, for a plurality of correlated random variables, a simulation sample including a plurality of simulations, wherein each simulation includes a plurality of simulation results (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
generate a surrogate cumulative distribution model at least in part by estimating a plurality of surrogate model parameters based at least in part on the plurality of simulation results (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the surrogate cumulative distribution model with the surrogate model parameters, select one or more subsets of the plurality of simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
in each of one or more resampling iterations, until a sum of one or more respective discrepancy scores of the one or more subsets is determined to meet a predefined optimization threshold (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion):
compute the one or more discrepancy scores of the one or more subsets (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the sum of the one or more discrepancy scores, sample one or more resampled simulations for the plurality of correlated random variables from among the plurality of simulations that are included in the simulation sample and not already included in the one or more subsets (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
replace one or more simulations included in the one or more subsets with the one or more resampled simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
output the simulations included in the one or more subsets subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”
Claim 12 recites:
“receiving, for a plurality of correlated random variables, a simulation sample including a plurality of simulations, wherein each simulation includes a plurality of simulation results (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
generating a surrogate cumulative distribution model at least in part by estimating a plurality of surrogate model parameters based at least in part on the plurality of simulation results (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the surrogate cumulative distribution model with the surrogate model parameters, selecting one or more subsets of the plurality of simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
in each of one or more resampling iterations, until a sum of one or more respective discrepancy scores of the one or more subsets is determined to meet a predefined optimization threshold (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion):
computing the one or more discrepancy scores of the one or more subsets (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the sum of the one or more discrepancy scores, sampling one or more resampled simulations for the plurality of correlated random variables from among the plurality of simulations that are included in the simulation sample and not already included in the one or more subsets (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
replacing one or more simulations included in the one or more subsets with the one or more resampled simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
outputting the simulations included in the one or more subsets subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”
Claim 20 recites:
“receive, for a plurality of correlated random variables, a simulation sample including a plurality of simulations, wherein each simulation includes a plurality of simulation results (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
based at least in part on the plurality of simulation results, generate a surrogate cumulative distribution model (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the surrogate cumulative distribution model, select a compressed subset of the plurality of simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
in each of one or more resampling iterations, until a discrepancy score of the compressed subset is determined to be below a predetermined discrepancy threshold (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion):
compute the discrepancy score of the compressed subset (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
based at least in part on the discrepancy score, sample one or more resampled simulations for the plurality of correlated random variables from among the plurality of simulations that are included in the simulation sample and not already included in the compressed subset (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
replace one or more simulations included in the compressed subset with the one or more resampled simulations (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
output the simulations included in the compressed subset subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “computing system” (Claim 1-12 and 20), “processor” (Claim 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 20), “graphical user interface (GUI)” (Claim 11) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering or outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “receive/receiving, for a plurality of correlated random variables, a simulation sample including a plurality of simulations, wherein each simulation includes a plurality of simulation results (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);”,
“output/outputting the simulations included in the one or more subsets subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”,
“output the simulations included in the compressed subset subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computing system” (Claim 1-12 and 20), “processor” (Claim 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 20), “graphical user interface (GUI)” (Claim 11) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further as discussed above, claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering or outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. 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): “receive/receiving, for a plurality of correlated random variables, a simulation sample including a plurality of simulations, wherein each simulation includes a plurality of simulation results (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);”,
“output/outputting the simulations included in the one or more subsets subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”,
“output the simulations included in the compressed subset subsequently to performing the one or more resampling iterations (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting).”
Further dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 recite:
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein, for a plurality of strata of the plurality of simulation results, the processor is further configured to:
compute a plurality of strata of the surrogate cumulative distribution model (a mathematical concept and “mental process” group of abstract ideas); and
select the one or more subsets of simulations such that the simulation results included in the simulations included in the one or more subsets are distributed equally among the plurality of strata (a mathematical concept and “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to replace the one or more simulations with the one or more resampled simulations at least in part by performing a quantum-inspired algorithm (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the plurality of simulation results for the plurality of correlated random variables at least in part by executing an Iman-Conover algorithm (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to sample the one or more resampled simulations at least in part by executing an Iman-Conover algorithm (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the surrogate cumulative distribution model is a mixed Erlang model including a plurality of Erlang distributions (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
7. The computing system of claim 6, wherein: the surrogate cumulative distribution model further includes one or more substitute tail region distributions configured to replace one or more respective tail regions of one or more of the plurality of Erlang distributions (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas); and
the one or more substitute tail region distributions differ from the one or more Erlang distributions within the one or more respective tail regions (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
8. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the surrogate cumulative distribution model is an empirical model for which the processor is configured to estimate the surrogate model parameters based at least in part on empirical data included in the plurality of simulations (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
9. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the plurality of surrogate model parameters at least in part by performing iterative expectation maximization (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
10. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of simulation results include a plurality of aggregate values, minimum values, or maximum values over the plurality of correlated random variables (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting).
11. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate the surrogate cumulative distribution model in response to receiving a surrogate model type selection (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas) at a graphical user interface (GUI) (apply the judicial exception on a computer);
generate the one or more subsets of the plurality of simulations in response to receiving simulation generating instructions (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas) at the GUI (apply the judicial exception on a computer); and
output the one or more subsets of the simulations to the GUI (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting).
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising,
for a plurality of strata of the plurality of simulation results:
computing a plurality of strata of the surrogate cumulative distribution model (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas); and
selecting the one or more subsets of simulations such that the simulation results included in the simulations included in the one or more subsets are distributed equally among the plurality of strata (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
14. The method of claim 12, wherein replacing the one or more simulations with the one or more resampled simulations includes performing a quantum-inspired algorithm (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
15. The method of claim 12, wherein sampling the one or more resampled simulations further includes executing an Iman-Conover algorithm (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the surrogate cumulative distribution model is a mixed Erlang model including a plurality of Erlang distributions (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
17. The method of claim 12, wherein the surrogate cumulative distribution model is an empirical model for which the surrogate model parameters are estimated based at least in part on empirical data included in the plurality of simulations (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
18. The method of claim 12, wherein estimating the plurality of surrogate model parameters includes performing iterative expectation maximization (a mathematical concept and/or “mental process” group of abstract ideas).
19. The method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of simulation results include a plurality of aggregate values, minimum values, or maximum values over the plurality of correlated random variables (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 1-20 are allowed.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-20 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims 1, 12, and 20 as whole.
Specifically none of the prior art of record discloses a modeling correlated distribution including generating a surrogate cumulative distribution model and iteration steps including compute the one or more discrepancy scores of the one or more subsets, based at least in part on the sum of the one or more discrepancy scores, sample one or more resampled simulations for the plurality of correlated random variables from among the plurality of simulations that are included in the simulation sample and not already included in the one or more subsets, and replace one or more simulations included in the one or more subsets with the one or more resampled simulations as disclosed in independent claims 1, 12, and 20 of the instant application in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
In addition, neither reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 1, 12, and 20 as a whole. Thus, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per 112 rejection, applicants have argued that:
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the recitation "at least in part" to connote alternatives or distinct options, but rather that it is not necessary that the recited feature is a necessary feature, but that other (not necessarily claimed) features may contribute.
The limitation “at least in part” is used as a coordinating conjunction to show an alternative between features which separates two distinct options indicating that a choice must be made between them. But there is no other alternative feature claimed for “at least in part” alternative limitation. Thus 112 rejection maintains.
As per 101 rejection: as rejected previously, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally cannot be said to improve computer technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components such as “computing system” (Claim 1-12 and 20), “processor” (Claim 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 20), and “graphical user interface (GUI)” (Claim 11) to perform the method is not sufficient. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which proved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Thus, 101 rejection maintains.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188