DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on March 23, 2026. Claims 1, 7-8, 15-16 and 18-20 have been amended, and claims 3, 10 and 17 have been cancelled.
Currently claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The objection to claims 7 and 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection to claims 16 and 18-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7-8, 15-16 and 18-20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 9, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the §101 rejection is based on an overgeneralized and incorrect characterization of the claims.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen on pages 10-11 of the previous Office Action, the Examiner has set forth in the Office Action by clearly identified the limitations that reflect abstract ideas. Besides, there is no requirement that the Examiner’s formulation of the abstract idea must copy the exact claim language. The courts have held that the level of abstraction at which the Examiner describes the invention does not change the accuracy of the Examiner’s determination. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”).
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claims are not “Directed To” the abstract idea identified by the office action.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the Directed To” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, claim 1 recites “a processor” is configured to perform the steps include: build an physical supply table (PST) and a physical use table (PUT) for a region of the economy by identify a cell location in the PST, PUT or a combination, store the flow data based on the identified cell location, generating a physical input output table (PIOT) based on the flow data stored in the PSTs and PUTs generated from execution of the plurality of engineering models across the identified batches, and render the PIOT visually on the graphical user interface. The Specification also describes that “the invention relates to economic modeling and, in particular, to physical mapping and material flow tracking using physical input output table network” (see ¶ 3); and “Physical supply use table (PSUTs) and physical input-output tables (PIOTs) provide a comprehensive view of how materials flow from one economic sector to another and to the end users…. Moreover, PIOTs are often compatible with national accounts of economic flows and can also be used in conjunction with national level Material Flow Analysis; Such tools automate the process of converting the available databases to supply use tables, (see ¶ 15); and “Example of the processor 816 may include a general processor, a central processing unit, logical CPUs/arrays, a microcontroller, a server, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or digital circuit” (see ¶ 83). It is clear that the clams focus on an abstract idea rather than on any improvement to a technology or a technical field, and the recited processor, user interface, and engineering models (instructions) are no more than generic computer components (hardware and software) that invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions. Thus, automating manual and mental processes on generic computers does not make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1365 (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”).
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action improperly reduces the claims to “Economic Data Manipulation”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. To understand what is economic data manipulation, the Specification describes that “One such IO based modeling technique is Physical Input-Output Tables (PIOTs), which provides a comprehensive accounting framework for tracking material flows from one economic sector to another and to the final end users. By doing so, PIOTs can help perform detailed Economy Wide Material Flow Accounting (EWMFA) which provide insights in evaluating and improving our resource use efficiency. As PIOTs can help track commodities used, produced, emissions and waste flows for each sector, it provides a framework to map all the material flows in an economic region and provide a physical economy model for the region being studied.” (See ¶ 4); “Physical supply use tables (PSUTs) and Physical Input-Output Table (PIOTs) provide a comprehensive view of how materials flow from one economic sector to another and to the end users….PSUTs and PIOTs provide a mechanism to map all the material flows in an economic region and provide a physical economy model for the region being studies. Moreover, PIOTs are often compatible with national accounts of economic flows and can also be used in conjunction with national level Material Flow Analysis. Furthermore, it is important to develop PSUTs and PIOTs at the most disaggregated levels possible to better investigate the intersectoral flows as it reduces uncertainty in decision making that arises from aggregation.” (See ¶ 15); and “The PIOT construction stage may convert PSTs and PUTs to PIOTs. The MFDES may transform the PUT and PST to PIOTs using a modified version of the Model D approach from the Eurostat manual. In this approach, the PSUTs are converted to PIOTs following matrix manipulation steps defined in the Model D approach.” (See 57). Thus, building an physical supply table (PST) and a physical use table (PUT) for a region of the economy, and generating a physical input output table (PIOT) based on the flow data stored in the PSTs and PUTs is a concept of economic data manipulation. As such, it is an abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action incorrectly asserts that the claims “recite only results desired by any and all possible means and lack “technological implementation details.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reciting the possible means for presenting a graphical user interface, executing multiple engineering models using different runtime environments, determining an execution type associated with an engineering model, and using different simulators configured to compile and execute different types of engineering models according to the execution type and the corresponding runtime-environment-specific to the simulation architecture, are all basic capabilities of a generic computer, but the purpose of all such processes is to generate a physical input output table (PIOT) based on the flow data, and render the PIOT on the graphical user interface.
Further, the claims here are unlike the claims in McRO. In McRO, the claimed improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by human animators.” See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In contrast, claim 1 here recites “determine an execution type, selecting a simulator associated with the execution type, and generate output flows during simulator execution do not improve the functioning of a computer (processor) or even the software components including the graphical user interface, the engineering models, or the runtime environment for processing the steps. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
In the Remarks on page 13, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a graphical user interface”, “a network” and even software components including the engineering modules and the simulator configured to compile and execute the engineering model according to the execution type and the corresponding runtime environment. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and communicating (transmitting) data over a network. For example, the specification describes that “The system 100 may include communication interfaces 812, input interface 828 and/or system circuitry 814 may include a processor 816 or multiple processor. The processor 816 may include a general processor, a central processing unit, logical CPUs/arrays, a microcontroller, a server, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or a digital circuit, analog circuit” (see ¶ 82-83); “The system may receive engineering models. The engineering models may include computer executable instructions written to simulate physical processes for different industries in an economy based on fundamental mass & energy balance and kinetics equations.” (see ¶ 18); and “Such tools automate the process of converting the available databases to supply use tables” (see ¶ 16). Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology.
In the Remarks on page 14, Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action has not established that the claimed execution scheme is routine or conventional.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B of the Alice analysis is a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. "Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry." Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a processor”, “a graphical user interface”, “a network” and even software components including the “engineering modules” and the “simulator” configured to compile and execute the engineering model according to the execution type and the corresponding runtime environment. When taken the additional elements individually or in an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
For example, reciting “a processor” or the combination of “a processor”, “a graphical user interface”, “a network” and the engineering modules for “selecting simulators based on execution type and runtime environment is part of the abstract idea is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is NOT enough to qualify as “significantly more”. With this regard, the courts have held that a process defined simply as using a computer and memory to perform a series of mental steps that people can and regularly do perform in their heads. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
Further, reciting the additional elements for “compiling and executing engineering models in different runtime environment” and “executing the engineering models in multiple batches” are well-understood, routine, or conventional functions of any computer with the basic capability. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that receiving a request to execute a database search and delivering records are routine computer functions that can only be described as generic or conventional); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096–97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (compiling and combining disparate information sources to generate a full picture of a user’s activity, identity, and frequency of activity in a computer network environment is not significantly different from ordinary mental processes).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The combination of Hurst and in view of Hutchison, Wieland and Grassia fails to teaches the limitations of: identifying batches of engineering models, within each batch, an output flow generated by execution of a first engineering model depends on an input flow of a second engineering model, concurrently executing the batches of engineering models in the respective runtime environments for each of the engineering models, generating a physical input output table (PIOT) based on PUTs and PSTs generated from execution of the plurality of engineering models across the identified batch. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are directed to a system comprising a processor, which falls within the statutory of a machine; claims 8, 9 and 11-14 are directed to a method for material dataflow extraction, which falls within the statutory category of a process; claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions executable by a hardware processor, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 8 recites the limitations of “present a graphical user interface configured to receive engineering models (instructions) and industry classifications (code), receiving the engineering models and the industry classifications, executing each of the engineering models, determining the type of engineering model, determining an execution type associated with the engineering model, selecting the simulator associated with the execution type, invoking the simulator to cause execution of the engineering model, populating a physical supply table (PST) and a physical use table (PUT) for a region of the economy, selecting the PST or the PUT depending on the flow direction, identifying a cell location in the selected PST or PUT, storing the data in the selected PST or PUT based on the flow type and the industry classification, generating a physical input output table (PIOT) based on the UPTs and PSTs, visually rendering the physical input output table on the graphical user interface”. Dependent claims 9-14 further recite limitations of “displaying at least a portion of the PIOT table or communicating the PIOT table over a network, identifying a file extension of the engineering model, generating a heatmap comprising cells shaded to illustrate material flow between two sectors, access a trade and consumer demand data comprising exports, imports and final consumer demand, populate the PUT with the export data and the final consumer demand data, populate the PST with the import data, generating a graphical user interface comprising a first control to receive a file identifier of the engineering model and a second control to receive the industry classification, and receiving the engineering model and industry classification response to interaction with the graphical user interface.” None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are methods for manipulating economic-related data by using physical input-output table, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “a graphical user interface”, “a processor”, and “over a network” do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 8 recites the additional elements of “a hardware processor”, “a graphical user interface”, “a network” and even software components including the engineering modules and the simulator configured to compile and execute the engineering model according to the execution type and the corresponding runtime environment. The specification describes that “The system 100 may include communication interfaces 812, input interface 828 and/or system circuitry 814 may include a processor 816 or multiple processor. The processor 816 may include a general processor, a central processing unit, logical CPUs/arrays, a microcontroller, a server, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or a digital circuit, analog circuit” (see ¶ 82-83); “The system may receive engineering models. The engineering models may include computer executable instructions written to simulate physical processes for different industries in an economy based on fundamental mass & energy balance and kinetics equations.” (see ¶ 18); and “Such tools automate the process of converting the available databases to supply use tables” (see ¶ 16). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and communicating (transmitting) data over a network. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 8 recites the additional elements of “a hardware processor”, “a graphical user interface”, “a network” and even software components including the engineering modules and the simulator configured to compile and execute the engineering model according to the execution type and the corresponding runtime environment. The specification describes that “The system 100 may include communication interfaces 812, input interface 828 and/or system circuitry 814 may include a processor 816 or multiple processor. The processor 816 may include a general processor, a central processing unit, logical CPUs/arrays, a microcontroller, a server, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and/or a digital circuit, analog circuit” (see ¶ 82-83); “The system may receive engineering models. The engineering models may include computer executable instructions written to simulate physical processes for different industries in an economy based on fundamental mass & energy balance and kinetics equations.” (see ¶ 18); and “Such tools automate the process of converting the available databases to supply use tables” (see ¶ 16). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and communicating (transmitting) data over a network. However, using a generic computer, for receiving, storing, displaying, and transmitting information over a network, have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; 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, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 8, 9 and 11-14 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 1, 2 and 4-7 and 15, 16 and 18-20 parallel claims 8, 9 and 11-14—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al., (CN 102663232) discloses a multiple-dimensional simulation analysis system for energy evaluation and economic management.
Mangino et al., (US 2004/0034857) discloses a method for simulating a discrete event process using business system data and plurality of models to generate a simulation model based on the selected business database and input data.
Rai et al., (US 2011/0002004) discloses a system for determining batch sizes for print jobs in a print production environment, and performing a discrete event simulation to model a makespan for the print job in processing each of the plurality of batches on the plurality of document production.
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 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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights