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 .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/10/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 21-23 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, are amended. Claims 22-23 been added. No claims are currently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the previous 101 rejection the applicant has argued “Applicant respectfully submits that the interpretation of claim 1 as directed to a mental process is an overbroad characterization of claim 1 that fails to consider the claim as a whole. Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be performed by a set of human operators or in the human mind. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (II)(A). Instead, the claimed invention recites an improved method performed by structured components (e.g., a "cloud server") that perform operations in the real world and have tangible and measurable impacts on the real world and simultaneously improve the functioning of the associated computing devices. Indeed, the act of "updating the model using the model update inputs, resulting in an updated model" is an action that cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph 13, the invention can be used to centralize the collection and incorporation of inputs used to construct and/or update a model (e.g., used for to evaluate the performance of an investment asset, such as an oil/gas-related asset) as the model is being developed. Although the applicant is creating a model the model generates/stores/outputs transaction records which based on the claim language is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims receive model inputs, identify approvers, send notifications, receive approvals, and track a chain of custody which are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial and legal interactions. The mere recitation of a cloud server or centralized system does not remove the abstract character of the underlying process. The core of what is claimed is a workflow approval and tracking system. The newly added sandbox model limitations. Specifically generating a sandbox model to simulate model update inputs and using received approvals to update the model based on the sandbox also to not overcome the rejection. Simulating inputs and obtaining approval before committing changes is a known process in software development and project management.
Although applicant’s invention uses a computer as can be seen in applicant’s background ¶ 2, The process for developing a model may involve manual collection of data and inputs from various domain contributors, and coordinating the incorporation of the inputs into model development. The applicant even states that the process for developing a model may be a manual process. This is further supported by applicant’s specification ¶ 50, Computational interpretations, models, and/or other interpretation aids may be refined in an iterative fashion; this concept is applicable to the methods discussed herein. This may include use of feedback loops executed on an algorithmic basis, such as at a computing device (e.g., computing system 500, Figure 5), and/or through manual control by a user who may make determinations regarding whether a given step, action, template, model, or set of curves has become sufficiently accurate for the evaluation of the subsurface three-dimensional geologic formation under consideration. The applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a) (The mental processes grouping consists of concepts performed in the human mind (including receiving, sending, using, generating)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim 1 can be performed by a mental process, i.e., a user/contributor, via pen and paper to (1) receiving model inputs; (2) send a notification; (3) receive data; (4) incorporate model inputs; (5) receive information; (6) generate transaction records; and (7) storing transaction records. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson [409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (‘mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’)]”); see also 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“concepts performed in the human mind”).
The applicant has argued “Applicant submits that the present claims integrate such alleged abstract ideas into a practical application and are directed toward improved systems, methods, and tangible, computer-readable mediums that integrate multiple and disparate types of real-world computing systems and sampling equipment to "generat[e] a workflow," "generating, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model," "using the received approvals, updating the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model, resulting in an updated model, wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations." FIG. 6 of the Application explains the use of a "sandbox model."" The examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements, a cloud server, centralized system, notifications, and a sandbox are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than applying the abstract idea using a generic computer in a conventional way. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the cloud server itself, a specific technical architecture for the sandbox environment, or any unconventional interaction among the computing components. It appears as though the applicant is claiming streamlining approvals and tracking contributions. This would be an improvement to a business process through generic computing but would not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The applicant has argued that “Applicant notes that a "sandbox" is typically used in computing systems as an isolated computing system that is used to test malicious, untested, or otherwise questionable code. The use of a "sandbox/private area" to model the opex and capex forecasts is an integration into a practical application because it facilitates the development and approval of model update inputs without updating the central copy of the model itself. Further, the claims, as listed above, provide model updating and tracking features to "centralize the collection of model inputs and track incorporation of the model inputs as transactions and visualize the progression of incorporating model inputs and model update inputs." Application at [0014]. The Application further explains that "As an example, the simulation component 120 may perform operations on input information based on one or more attributes specified by the attribute component 130. In an example embodiment, the simulation component 120 may construct one or more models of the geologic environment 150, which may be relied on to simulate behavior of the geologic environment 150 (e.g., responsive to one or more acts, whether natural or artificial)." Id. at [0024]. "Aspects of the present disclosure are not limited to construction, development, and/or updating a model by centralized input collection and tracking, but may also be used to construct, develop, and/or update a simulation, a workflow, and/or other entity in which update and development inputs and data may be disparate across different organizations, departments, locations, etc." Id. at [0015]. "In this way, the systems and/or methods, described herein, may streamline approval processes, workflows, and contributions made by different types of contributors who may perform different actions in their role in updating and developing a model." Id. at [0013]. Thus, generating transaction records to update model and generate updated workflows may "streamline" workflows and otherwise improve efficiency in the operational environment.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if applicant’s invention is done by a sandbox used in computing systems the computer is merely a tool to perform the steps of the invention. The 2019 Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if the additional element (1) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field; (2) applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; (3) implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim; (4) effects a transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing; or (5) 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 effort designed to monopolize the exception. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant is generating a workflow, receiving data, sending a notification, receiving an approval for updates, updating the model, updating a chain of custody of the model, generating progress events, generating transaction records, storing the transaction records, and implementing the revised workflow. Looking at applicant’s originally filed disclosure Fig. 2 shows an example of a workflow. There does not appear to be any improvement to the efficiency. The applicant is receiving input from a contributor, asking approval, and is applying the input. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claims require human input and approval. It doesn’t appear as though the technology provides any improvements. Applicant’s argument pointing to the specification ¶ 13-15, 24, regarding simulation components and workflow streamlining merely describe functional results rather than a specific technical implementation that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception.
The applicant has argued “As such, even if, for the sake of argument, independent claim 1 is considered to be an abstract idea that is not sufficiently integrated into a practical application (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant submits that independent claim 1 is at least directed to unconventional recitations that offer specific technological improvements in computer system operations and amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant does not identify any specific limitation of claim 1, either alone or in combination, beyond the judicial exception that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception, as per MPEP § 2106.05(d). Instead the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to “no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component.” “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive therefore the rejection is maintained and updated below.
The applicant has argued the previous 103 rejection in view of new amendments. The previous 103 rejection is withdrawn. The independent claims were amended to recite, “generating, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model;” “using the model update inputs, identifying approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model;” “wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers;” “based on missing approvals, notifying the approvers of outstanding approvals to complete;” “using the received approvals, updating the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model.” The functionality and features of the sandbox model A thorough search of the prior art was conducted including the previously applied references Vaal et al. (US 20080306803 A1), Singh et al. (US 20210200903 A1), Hatoun (US 20060069605 A1). The prior art does not individually or in combination teach or disclose or render obvious each and every limitation of the independent claim. Accordingly the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 21.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 16-23 are directed to a method, claims 6, 8-11, are directed to a system, and claims 7, 12-15 are directed to a computer readable medium. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20, 21-23are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite receiving information about a model and generating, storing/outputting transaction records, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to “Commercial interactions” or “legal interactions” include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “generating a workflow for a drilling process implemented in a geological environment; receiving, from a first contributor of a plurality of contributors associated with the model… wherein the model update inputs include an identity of the model, a type of updates, and an identification of the first contributor, and approvals to incorporate the model update inputs into the model; sending a notification… to the plurality of contributors associated with the model notifying that the model update inputs have been received; based on the notification, receiving approval for the model update inputs from the approvers; based on missing approvals, notifying the approvers of outstanding approvals to complete; using the received approval…; generating progress events for a change made to updating the model, wherein the progress events include completion of each task of the plurality of tasks; generating transaction records for updating the model, wherein the transaction records include the model update inputs, the chain of custody, the plurality of tasks, and the progress events, the transaction records including the approval of the model update inputs; and storing…the transaction records.” Claim 6 recites abstract limitations including “generate a workflow for a drilling process implemented in a geologic environment; receive, from a first contributor of a plurality of contributors associated with a model… wherein the model update inputs include an identity of the model, a type of updates, and an identification of the first contributor, and approvals to incorporate the model update inputs into the model; send a notification, …, to the plurality of contributors associated with the model notifying that the model update inputs have been received; based on the notification, receive approval for the model update inputs from the approvers; based on missing approvals, notify the approvers of outstanding approvals to complete; using the received approval…; for each task of the plurality of tasks, update a chain of custody of the model to the updated model with the model update inputs, the chain of custody including a historical record of incorporation of the model update inputs; generate progress events for a change made to updating the model, wherein the progress events include completion of each task to the plurality of tasks; generate transaction records for updating the model, wherein the transaction records include the model update inputs, the chain of custody, the plurality of tasks, and the progress events the transaction records including the approval of the model update inputs; and store the transaction records.” Claim 7 recites abstract limitations including “generate a workflow for a drilling process implemented in a geologic environment; receive, from a first contributor of a plurality of contributors associated with a model, …, wherein the model update inputs include an identity of the model, a type of updates, and an identification of the first contributor, and approvals to incorporate the model update inputs into the model; send a notification…to the plurality of contributors associated with the model notifying that the model update inputs have been received; based on the notification, receive approval for the model update inputs from the approvers; based on missing approvals, notify the approvers of outstanding approvals to complete; using the received approval…; … for each task of a plurality of tasks, update a chain of custody of the model to the updated model with the model update inputs, the chain of custody including a historical record of incorporation of the model update inputs; generate progress events for a change made to updating the model, wherein the progress events include completion of each task of the plurality of tasks; generate transaction records for updating the model, wherein the transaction records include the model update inputs, the chain of custody, the plurality of tasks, and the process events the transaction records including the approval of the model update inputs; and store the transaction records.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “one or more processors,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “one or more processors” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “a mental process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, 9, 13, 21-23, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 6, 7, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “the model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server, generating, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; using the model update inputs, identifying approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model; from the cloud server, received, wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers, updating the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model, resulting in an updated model wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revising the workflow to a revised workflow and implementing the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” Claim 6 is a system comprising “one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server, generate, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors includes the approvers; using the model update inputs, identify approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model; from the cloud server, update the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model, resulting in an update model wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revise the workflow to a revised workflow and provide instructions to implement the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” Claim 7 recites is a non-transitory computer-readable medium including “when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system, model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server; generate, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; using the model update inputs, identify approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model from the cloud server, update the model using the model update inputs, resulting in an updated model; wherein notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers; .. and based on the sandbox model; wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revise the workflow to a revised workflow; and provide instructions to implement the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, send, generate, and store data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3, 9, 13, introduces the additional element of “further comprising providing a communications platform to receive communications from the plurality of contributors regarding the progress of the incorporation of the model update inputs.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21, introduces the additional element of “wherein the workflow includes drilling a well in with equipment associated with the well.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22, introduces the additional element of “wherein the model update inputs include an opex forecast and a capex forecast.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 23, introduces the additional element of “wherein the sandbox model includes a private area for the opex forecast and the capex forecast.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 6, 7, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “the model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server, generating, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; using the model update inputs, identifying approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model; from the cloud server, received, wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers, updating the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model, resulting in an updated model wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revising the workflow to a revised workflow and implementing the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” Claim 6 is a system comprising “one or more processors; and a memory system comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server, generate, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors includes the approvers; using the model update inputs, identify approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model; from the cloud server, update the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model, resulting in an update model wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revise the workflow to a revised workflow and provide instructions to implement the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” Claim 7 recites is a non-transitory computer-readable medium including “when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system, model update inputs via a centralized system, wherein the centralized system includes a cloud server; generate, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model; using the model update inputs, identify approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model from the cloud server, update the model using the model update inputs, resulting in an updated model; wherein notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers; .. and based on the sandbox model; wherein updating the model includes updating the model in a plurality of tasks at a plurality of locations, at the cloud server, based on the transaction records and the updated model, revise the workflow to a revised workflow; and provide instructions to implement the revised workflow in the geologic environment.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3, 9, 13, introduces the additional element of “further comprising providing a communications platform to receive communications from the plurality of contributors regarding the progress of the incorporation of the model update inputs.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21, introduces the additional element of “wherein the workflow includes drilling a well in with equipment associated with the well.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 22, introduces the additional element of “wherein the model update inputs include an opex forecast and a capex forecast.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 23, introduces the additional element of “wherein the sandbox model includes a private area for the opex forecast and the capex forecast.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 20-23 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. The applicant has made multiple amendments to independent claims 1, 6, 7, which no support can be found for in the originally filed disclosure.
Specifically the newly amended in limitation of:
“approvals to incorporate the model update inputs into the model.” The applicant has support for approvals that are solicited and received after the model update inputs are received not as a component of the input themselves.
“generating, using the model update inputs, a sandbox model to simulate the model update inputs at the model.” The applicant has support in Fig. 6 for a user providing a sandboxed private area. The user does not have support for a system generated simulation of what the model would look like after incorporating these inputs. The claim language implies an automated system action that produces a simulated version of the updated model. The originally filed disclosure only supports user-operated private workspace.
“using the model update inputs, identifying approvers to approve updating the model with the model update inputs based on the sandbox model.” The applicant has support in the specification for a previously configured set of approvers not a dynamic identification process driven by the model update inputs and sandbox model. The originally filed disclosure does not have support for identifying approvers.
“wherein the notification includes the sandbox model and the plurality of contributors include the approvers.” The applicant has support in the originally filed disclosure for sending notifications. However, the applicant does not have support for a notification that includes a sandbox model and a notification that alerts that data inputs have been received.
“using the received approvals, updating the model using the model update inputs and based on the sandbox model.” The applicant does not have any support for an update of the sandbox model, the sandbox model is not described as becoming or informing the updated model.
The applicant has a general mention of the sandbox model in Fig. 6. There is no further discussion or teaching of the interaction of specifically the claimed steps of the interaction with the sandbox model. Appropriate correction is required. All claims that depend from a previously rejected claim inherit the rejections of the claim that depend from.
Other pertinent prior art includes Finkel et al. (US 20170124669 A1) which discloses creating secure and reliable data in a gas and oil supply chain. Badry et al. (US 20080204013 A1) which discloses logging downhole in an earth borehole and, more particularly, to a logging method for determining a characteristic of a fluid, especially oil, that may be present in a downhole measurement region. Kulkarni et al. (US 20130283060 A1) which discloses the update of data being made to authorized users. Koc et al. (US 20210117896 A1) which discloses a supply chain simulation including a chain of custody.
Conclusion
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights