DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/29/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15, creating and executing a first digital twin simulation of a first reference automated ecosystem implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem; creating and executing a second digital twin simulation of the target automated ecosystem implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem; and building and training a machine learning model to identify a recovery schema for handling the identified adverse effects from a knowledge corpus, cannot practically be performed in the human mind, including using a pen and paper… Hence, the claim limitations directed to creating and executing a digital twin simulation are not directed to a mental process’ and notes that ‘AI/ML training that cannot be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process… building and training a machine learning model is not directed to a mental process since training a machine learning model ( e.g., backpropagation through thousands of nodes) is physically impossible for a human to perform practically’ (pages 11-12).
It is respectfully submitted that simulating/modeling is an abstract process that can be performed by a human, potentially with pen and paper. ‘Digital’ simulation is merely using generic computer technology and not considered significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Furthermore, as detailed in the rejection below under 35 U.S.C. § 101, machine learning is not considered a mental process — consistent with current USPTO guidelines — but an additional element involving applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, and using a broadly recited known algorithm. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field, address ‘technical problem with a technical solution by optimizing a target automated ecosystem via the use of digital twin simulations.’ and states ‘Hence, there is an improvement in the technology or technical field of automated ecosystems, such as optimizing the target automated ecosystem via the use of digital twin simulations, using the additional elements, either alone or in combination with the recited judicial exception.’ and ‘Applicant's claimed invention applies, relies on or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that Applicant's claimed invention is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception’ (page 12-21).
It is respectfully submitted that an improved simulation/modeling method is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (creating and executing simulations, performing an analysis of those simulations and identifying infrastructure and/or processes based on the analysis) is still merely an abstract idea. It is noted that providing the infrastructure/processes ‘to be adopted and implemented in the target automated ecosystem’ very broadly recites an intent to apply the abstract idea and may therefore be considered a mere drafting effort. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s comments on the dependent claims (page 21) are moot given the continued rejection of independent claims 1 and 15.
Applicant argues, with regard to the rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, that the specification does not provide support for interpreting a computer-readable storage medium as software per se (pages 21-22).
It is respectfully submitted that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification but it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, such as examples cited by Applicant, see MPEP 2111.01. It is also noted that a statement regarding claim construction, e.g. in [0077] is not considered a definite enough disavowal or special definition under current USPTO guidance. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 22-23) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of creating and executing simulations, performing an analysis of those simulations and identifying infrastructure and/or processes based on the analysis.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for optimizing a target automated ecosystem, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
creating and executing a first digital twin simulation of a first reference automated ecosystem implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem;
creating and executing a second digital twin simulation of the target automated ecosystem implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem;
performing a comparative analysis between the first and second digital twin simulations to identify differences in terms of infrastructure and processes;
identifying a first set of infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the first reference automated ecosystem with an improvement over infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the target automated ecosystem based on the comparative analysis… identifying adverse effects from implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem by the first reference automated ecosystem and the target automated ecosystem based on the first and second digital twin simulations; and …identify a recovery schema for handling the identified adverse effects from a knowledge corpus that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. that the method is computer implemented (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an automated ecosystem (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving requirements of the target automated ecosystem (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), providing the first set of infrastructure and/or processes (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to be adopted and implemented in the target automated ecosystem (an intended use) and building and training a machine learning model (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, using a broadly recited known algorithm) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that that automated ecosystems are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Jessen et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210053228 [0002] and the references cited below. In addition, machine learning involving k-nearest neighbors, Naïve Bayes, decision trees, linear regression, support vector machines, and neural networks is well-understood, routine and conventional, see Agarwal et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200137585 [particularly 0028].
The claims 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, that the method is computer implemented (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an automated ecosystem (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving requirements of the target automated ecosystem (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), providing the first set of infrastructure and/or processes (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to be adopted and implemented in the target automated ecosystem (an intended use) and building and training a machine learning model (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, using a broadly recited known algorithm) are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites ‘identifying the first set of infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the first reference automated ecosystem with an improvement over infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the target automated ecosystem that exceeds a threshold value’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites saving a result of the first and second digital twin simulations in a knowledge corpus; and saving a result of the comparative analysis in the knowledge corpus’ applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites ‘identifying the recovery schema for handling the identified adverse effects from the knowledge corpus using the machine learning model by iteratively making predictions of an appropriate recovery schema until the predictions achieve a desired accuracy’ (mental process executed with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, using a broadly recited known algorithm). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 merely recites ‘k-nearest neighbors, Naïve Bayes, decision trees, linear regression, support vector machines, and neural networks’ that are known types of abstract algorithms. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites providing the recovery schema to be adopted and implemented (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) in the target automation ecosystem (intended use). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites creating and executing a third digital twin simulation of a second reference automated ecosystem implementing the requirements of the target automated ecosystem; performing the comparative analysis between the first, second and third digital twin simulations to identify differences in terms of infrastructure and processes; and identifying a second set of infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the first and second reference automated ecosystems with an improvement over infrastructure implemented and/or processes executed by the target automated ecosystem (mental process); and providing the second set of infrastructure and/or processes to be adopted and implemented (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) in the target automated ecosystem (intended use). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites a system, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the system performs a method similar to that recited in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Note that a memory for storing a computer program for optimizing a target automated ecosystem; and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program is merely considered applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, and not significantly more. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 recite similar limitations to claims 2-6 and are rejected under the same respective rationales.
Claim(s) 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a computer program product… the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, i.e. software. “Software per se” is non-statutory under 35 USC 101 because it is merely a set of instructions. See MPEP 2106.03.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
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 BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119