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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final action is in response to election/restriction filed 1/9/2026.
Applicant elected Invention II, claims 18-24 on 1/9/2026.
Claims 1-17 and 25 have been withdrawn.
Claims 18-24 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2026 and 11/20/2025 have been considered and initialed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 recites, “determine a plurality of stakeholders associated with that corresponding issue based on the plurality of data”, there appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites, “compare the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite”. Examiner was unable to find support in the disclosure for the respective limitations, nor does the specification demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function since the invention is not described in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the specification as filed does not adequately describe or support the steps for comparing the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite as recited in the limitation, nor does it allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the applicant has invented what is claimed. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected. Applicant is requested to identify where exactly the limitations are supported in applicant’s disclosure.
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.
Claims 18-24 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.
Claim 18 recites, “compare the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite”. It is not clear how to compare the plurality of updated positions …. to the desired outcome including decision making criteria of sureness since applicant’s specification fails to distinctly describe the term “sureness” in the disclosure. Hence, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. MPEP 2773.04 states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, rendering the claim indefinite. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim 18 recites, “compare the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite”. It is not clear how to compare the plurality of updated positions …. to the desired outcome including decision making criteria of robustness since applicant’s specification fails to distinctly describe the term “robustness” in the disclosure. Hence, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. MPEP 2773.04 states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, rendering the claim indefinite. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim 18 recites, “compare the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite”. It is not clear how to compare the plurality of updated positions …. to the desired outcome including decision making criteria of resiliency since applicant’s specification fails to distinctly describe the term “resiliency” in the disclosure. Hence, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. MPEP 2773.04 states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, rendering the claim indefinite. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim 18 recites, “compare the plurality of updated positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite”. It is not clear how to compare the plurality of updated positions …. to the desired outcome including decision making criteria of environmental shaping since applicant’s specification fails to distinctly describe the term “environmental shaping” in the disclosure. Hence, Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. MPEP 2773.04 states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, rendering the claim indefinite. The respective dependent claims do not remedy this flaw; therefore, they are also rejected.
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 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 18-24 are directed to a system. Thus, they fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Claim 18 recites in part, “determine a plurality of desired outcomes for a plurality of issues based on a plurality of data; for each of the issues, determine a plurality of stakeholders associated with that corresponding issue based on the plurality of data; for a first issue of the plurality of issues, analyze the first issue to determine a first plurality of strategies and tactics associated with the corresponding desired outcome; execute a first plurality of rounds for each of the first plurality of strategies for the first issue, wherein during each round the plurality of stakeholders each take an action of a plurality of actions; analyze a first plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders after the plurality of rounds; compare the first plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome, which includes decision making criteria of time, consensus, efficiency, sureness, robustness, adaptiveness, resiliency, environmental shaping, and risk appetite; determine if one or more strategies of the plurality of strategies do not move any stakeholders of the plurality of stakeholders towards the desired outcome based on the comparison; discard the one or more determined strategies that do not move any stakeholders towards the desired outcome; update the remaining first plurality of strategies based on the comparison; for a second issue of the plurality of issues, analyze the second issue to determine a second plurality of strategies and tactics associated with the corresponding desired outcome; execute a second plurality of rounds for each of the second plurality of strategies for the second issue, wherein during each round the plurality of stakeholders each take an action of the plurality of actions; analyze a second plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders after the second plurality of rounds; compare the second plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome; determine if one or more second strategies of the second plurality of strategies do not move any stakeholders of the plurality of stakeholders towards the desired outcome based on the comparison; discard the one or more determined second strategies that do not move any stakeholders towards the desired outcome; and compare the remaining first plurality of strategies and tactics with the remaining second plurality of strategies and tactics to determine one or more issue tradeoffs.” The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 18 is directed toward the abstract idea for determining a plurality of stakeholders, strategies and tactics associated with a plurality of issues, desired outcome and actions; analyzing, discarding, updating, comparing and generating one or more strategies and tactics based on the plurality of stakeholders to determine one or more issue tradeoffs in a computing environment.
Applicant’s specification discusses predicting future events for multi-level human, social, cultural and behavioral systems and more particularly to methods and systems for determining the potential occurrence of future events during specific timelines based on current events. It discloses receiving a plurality of data from a plurality of real-time sources, wherein a portion of the plurality of data is from real-time sources and that a plurality of models includes a plurality of variables. The disclosure emphasizes determining optimal paths for multi-party, multiple negotiation issue situations; determining a plurality of stakeholders for determining a desired outcome for an issue based on a plurality of data whereby initial positions are for the plurality of stakeholders is determined, a first round of analysis of the issue is executed, and a first plurality of actions to the plurality of initial positions is applied, one or more changes of position for one or more stakeholders is determined for each of the plurality of scenarios. The also disclosure also discusses in part, for a first issue, determine a first plurality of strategies and tactics associated with the corresponding desired outcome; comparing the first plurality of strategies and tactics with a second plurality of strategies and tactics to determine one or more issue tradeoffs (¶2, ¶7-¶9).
Claim 18 is considered an abstract idea because the (underlined) limitations as claimed, pertains to (i) mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by a human being with a pen and paper; (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; and (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). With the exception of a “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” a human being with a pen and paper can, determine a plurality of desired outcomes for a plurality of issues based on a plurality of data; for each of the issues, determine a plurality of stakeholders associated with that corresponding issue based on the plurality of data; for a first issue of the plurality of issues, analyze the first issue to determine a first plurality of strategies and tactics associated with the corresponding desired outcome; execute a first plurality of rounds for each of the first plurality of strategies for the first issue, analyze a first plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders after the plurality of rounds; compare the first plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome; determine if one or more strategies of the plurality of strategies do not move any stakeholders of the plurality of stakeholders towards the desired outcome based on the comparison; discard the one or more determined strategies that do not move any stakeholders towards the desired outcome; update the remaining first plurality of strategies based on the comparison; for a second issue of the plurality of issues, analyze the second issue to determine a second plurality of strategies and tactics associated with the corresponding desired outcome; execute a second plurality of rounds for each of the second plurality of strategies for the second issue,; analyze a second plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders after the second plurality of rounds; compare the second plurality of positions for the plurality of stakeholders to the desired outcome; determine if one or more second strategies of the second plurality of strategies do not move any stakeholders of the plurality of stakeholders towards the desired outcome based on the comparison; discard the one or more determined second strategies that do not move any stakeholders towards the desired outcome; and compare the remaining first plurality of strategies and tactics with the remaining second plurality of strategies and tactics to determine one or more issue tradeoffs”, which is directed to the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The claims also pertain to (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Hence, the claims are also directed to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas--see MPEP 2106.04(II).
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements a “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” for (determining, analyzing, executing, comparing, discarding, updating) data gathering and analysis and merely to provide instructions for managing information, and to implement the abstract idea recited above utilizing a “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). These elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Independent claim 18 fails to operate the “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” (which is merely a nominal recitation of a standard computer technology, database and hardware/software components) see applicant’s disclosure ¶119: “In the exemplary embodiment, user computer devices 905 are computers that include a web browser or a software application, which enables user computer devices 905 to access remote computer devices, such as EWEP computer system 910, using the Internet or other network. More specifically, user computer devices 905 may be communicatively coupled to the Internet through many interfaces including, but not limited to, at least one of a network, such as the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or an integrated services digital network (ISDN), a dial-up-connection, a digital subscriber line (DSL), a cellular phone connection, a cloud connection, and a cable modem. User computer devices 905 may be any device capable of accessing the Internet including, but not limited to, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a phablet, wearable electronics, smart watch, or other web-based connectable equipment or mobile devices”; ¶128: “In some embodiments, server computer device 1101 is a part of a cloud client server deployment. Server computer device 1101 may also include a processor 1105 for executing instructions. Instructions may be stored in a memory area 1110. Processor 1105 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi- core configuration)”; ¶130: “Processor 1105 may also be operatively coupled to a storage device 1134. Storage device 1134 may be any computer-operated hardware suitable for storing and/or retrieving data, such as, but not limited to, data associated with database 920 (shown in Figure 9). In some embodiments, storage device 1134 may be integrated in server computer device 1101”,in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for determining a plurality of stakeholders, strategies and tactics associated with a plurality of issues, desired outcome and actions; analyzing, discarding, updating, comparing and generating one or more strategies and tactics based on the plurality of stakeholders to determine one or more issue tradeoffs in a computing environment-see MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, applicant has not shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a). The description of these elements evidences that they are generic computing components used to perform generic functions.
Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using generic computer components (“computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory”) performing generic computer functions (determining, analyzing, executing, comparing, discarding, updating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component-see MPEP 2106.05(f) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 19-24 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 19-24 recite additional data gathering and processing steps; for example, dependent claims 19, 21, 22, 23 recite in part, “wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to”; claim 20 recites in part, “wherein one or more stakeholders are associated with”; claim 24 recites in part, “wherein a first stakeholder is associated with”, which is still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. Here the recited, “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” are merely used for analyzing, comparing, updating received data based on rules logic and further process the received information to implement the abstract idea, and similarly provides a generic environment in which the claimed method is performed In re TLI Commc’ns LLPC Patent Litig., 823F.3d607,611 (Fed. Cir.2016)
Moreover, there is no improvement to the “computer device”, “at least one processor”, “memory” and amounts to no more than applying the judicial exception using generic computing components, and linking the use of the judicial exception to a computing environment. Hence, the 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.
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for determining a plurality of stakeholders, strategies and tactics associated with a plurality of issues, desired outcome and actions; analyzing, discarding, updating, comparing and generating one or more strategies and tactics based on the plurality of stakeholders to determine one or more issue tradeoffs in a computing environment. Hence, claims 18-24 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Erdman et al., US Patent Application Publication No US 20110264602 A1, “Computer-Implemented Systems and Methods for Implementing Dynamic Trading Strategies in Risk Computations”, relating to simulating a portfolio risk of a portfolio managed according to one or more portfolio management rules via a Monte Carlo simulation that incorporates dynamic portfolio management.
Farrell et al., US Patent No US 8626552 B2, “Quorum Management of Appointment Scheduling”, relating to scheduling an appointment with each of a plurality of invitees in response to an acceptance from one or more of the invitees, the one or more invitees that have accepted the appointment collectively satisfying a quorum constraint associated with the appointment.
Thiessen, US Patent No US 5,495,412, “Computer Based Method and Apparatus for Interactive Computer Assisted Negotiations”, relating to a computer-based method for assisting at least two parties involved in a multiple issue negotiation problem toward achieving an optimal mutually satisfactory agreement on decisions to be taken on one or more of said issues
Engleman et al., US Patent Application Publication No US 2003/0163357 A1, “Method and Apparatus for an Information Systems Improvement Planning and Management Process”, relating to the dynamic and automated collaboration between the business with software under management, external consulting resources, and a research function that collects business software product data and acts as a clearinghouse for best practices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-3929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730a-5p. 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights