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
This is a Final Office Action of the instant application 17/810,276 (hereinafter the ‘276 application), responsive to the Reply to Non-Final Office Action of 11/19/2025. The ‘276 application was filed on June 30, 2022.
This application has two closely related co-pending applications each filed on the same day as the ‘275 application:
17/810,251
17/810,257
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (along with each or their corresponding dependent claims) are directed to the abstract idea of generating data based on a mathematical calculation.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
In the Supreme Court’s decision, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (“Alice Corp."), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __(2012) (Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(I). First, it must be determined (in Step 1) whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Second, if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). Under the two-part analysis for judicial exceptions it is first determined (in Step 2A) whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. Step 2A is broken down in to two parts:
Step 2A Prong 1- a determination is made if the claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or a Natural Phenomenon, under the 2019 PEG groupings of Abstract Ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2- a determination is made if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception, a determination is then made (in Step 2B) as to whether any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” 79 Fed. Reg. 241 (Dec. 16, 2014), pp. 74621-74624. As discussed below, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the claims do not recite additional elements or combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examples of abstract ideas referenced in Alice Corp. Include:
a. Fundamental economic practices;
b. Certain methods of organizing human activities;
c. An idea itself; and
d. Mathematical relationships/formulas.
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when the claim features include, as non-exclusive examples:
a. Improvements to another technology or technical field;
b. Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
c. Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Examples that are NOT enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples:
a. Adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
b. Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Analysis
The following analysis is based on the “2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance Quick Reference Sheet,” (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf) and the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility", (hereinafter: July 2015 Guidance), available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 (the independent claims) pertain to a computing system (Step 1), for stratifying conditional cumulative distribution models, computing a sum of discrepancy scores, and running resampling iterations with resampled simulations until the sum meets a threshold. The systems are said to include the steps/components for receiv(ing): a plurality of simulations… a discrete distribution function, and one or more cumulative distribution models; generat(ing) one or more conditional cumulative distribution models; stratify(ing) … into a number of strata; compute a sum of discrepancy scores…; generate one or more resampled simulations; replace simulations with resampled simulations; generate updated sum; check to see if meets threshold; output the plurality of simulations.
Here the sequence of steps are directed to a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept which has been viewed by the courts to be abstract (Step 2A Prong 1). The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by the claims quoted above, is on collecting information, analyzing it through calculation means, and outputting results of the collection and analysis.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (or by using a pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Additionally, it is noted that claims can recite a “mental process” even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer, wherein the present claims “receive”; “generate… models”; “generate… resampled simulations”; “replace… simulations… with… resampled simulation based on a policy”; “output the plurality of simulations” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that said claim limitations equally fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Said grouping including mathematical relationships and calculations, wherein the claims “generate conditional cumulative distribution models”; “stratify a range”; “compute a sum of discrepancy scores”; “generate… resampled simulations”; “generate and updated sum of discrepancy scores”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims are therefore directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). Specifically, the case parallels the fact patterns in Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis), Digitech (organizing information through mathematical correlations), and Benson (a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another / manipulating information using mathematical relationships).
101 COLLECTING INFORMATION is ABSTRACT:
Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
101 ANALYZING INFORMATION is ABSTRACT:
In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972).
101 PRESENTING RESULTS is ABSTRACT:
And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In summary -
The claims of the ‘276 application are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2). In particular, the additional claim element of processor is merely a generic computer component, where this claim element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (Step 2B)
The claim does not include any 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 using “A computer system”; “A computing system”; “a processor” amount to no more than using generic computer components. Applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, it is noted that to receive “a plurality of simulations…a discrete distribution function…one or more cumulative distribution models” is also merely a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function and it is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not add significantly more than the abstract idea presented in the parent claims and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Prior Art
The closest prior art Packham et al., Latin hypercube sampling with dependence and applications in finance”, hereinafter LHC, teaches a computing system that receives simulation data from a Monte Carlo simulation sample (see page 6), using distribution functions to organize data (see pages 17-18), then uses the simulation data in Latin hypercube sampling to select particular (condition based) permutations based upon samples in that dimension (see pages 4-5); then strata are generated and further analyzed to determine discrepancies (see pages 5-6); here a plurality of “baskets” are created corresponding to stratified data groups (see pages 5-6 and page 17 along with figure 2); this enables better simulations to be used that more closely relate to uniformity, while not considering “unfavorable” simulations that contribute to the variance (discrepancy score) (see page 3).
The system described in LHC, however, does not explicitly describe “generat(ing) one or more resampled simulations based at least in part on one or more cumulative distribution models”, then “replac(ing) one or more simulations” already used; and “generating an updated sum of discrepancy scores”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant fails to show the improvement described in the specification comes out in the claims language.
Review of the specification and applicant’s arguments shows that the improvement disclosed in the specification is tied to reducing the Monte Carlo simulations through systems and methods that model correlated variables using quantum-based optimization routines, where outputs of the quantum-based optimization routine are used to build a model based on a relatively small number of Monte Carlo simulation while maintaining similarly accuracy with more efficient performance. This concept doesn’t fully come out in the claim language, at least not to the extent required to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as established in Enfish, LLC v. Misrosoft Corp. and Ex Parte Desjardins.
Patent owner argues that the improvement is “detailed in paragraphs [0210], [0270] and [0271]. In this regard, as shown above, paragraph [0210] recites that the policy "enables a computing system to optimize the modified simulation results (e.g., by minimizing a discrepancy score), such that an event-driven model based upon one or more accepted simulation result values is more representative of the cumulative distribution models and conditional cumulative distribution models than an event-driven model based upon the initial simulation results".”
The Examiner respectfully submits that this concept and even this quote is not resident the cited paragraph [210], nor could this concept be determined to be a technological improvement defined in the specification.
Applicant further specifically argues support for this improvement include in paragraph 270 which recites “the accept/reject policy is additionally or alternately configured to apply the policy to minimize the one or more respective discrepancy scores”.
The Examiner again doesn’t see this concept coming out in the claims and does not believe the rejection under 101 should be removed and the claim found eligible based upon the claim reflecting the improvement disclosed in the specification.
Applicant further specifically argues support for this improvement include in paragraph 271 which recites “Further to this aspect, in some examples, the processor is additionally or alternatively configured to apply the policy to minimize the one or more respective discrepancy scores. A potential technical advantage of such a configuration is that a set of simulations is generated that closely approximates the conditional cumulative distribution models".
The Examiner again doesn’t see this concept, certainly not the specific ‘policy’ aspect coming out in the claims and does not believe the rejection under 101 should be removed and the claim found eligible based upon the claim reflecting the improvement disclosed in the specification.
Of note, the specific sections referenced by the Applicant to support a improvement disclosed the specification actually refer to what the Applicant notes as the technological improvement as a “potential technical advantage” (paragraphs 270 and 271), raising ambiguity as to whether the inventor at the time fully believes it is a technical advantage.
Summary
Claims 1-20 are REJECTED.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992