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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 5 and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 28, 29, and 31 were not elected.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-27, 30 and 32-33 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11 that the claims do not fall in an abstract idea grouping. Applicant recites limitations such as
The amended claim 1 recites operations on hardware components: storing a single value at each node in place of a full distribution; indexing the stored data structures by spatial and temporal identifiers in a hierarchical wide column array; traversing those identifiers responsive to a machine query; and recreating a full distribution from the stored value. There is no mental analogue since a human with pen and paper would not be able to practically complete the above machine-state operations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Indexing, traversing, and creating a distribution are merely data manipulation steps. For example, a user is able to index and traverse data without the use of a computer. A user is also able to create a distribution. The Applicant states hardware components, but hardware components are not part of step 2A prong 1 where an abstract idea is identified. The hardware components are treated as additional elements. In addition, storing is merely extra solution activity that is tangential to the claims.
Applicant argues on page 12
The amended claim 1 also does not merely recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The amended claim is directed to machine processing and memory operations, not commercial interactions, fundamental economic practices, or rules governing human behavior.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite risk metrics, risk factors, climate risk data structures, and financial impact which are with respect to a business as seen para 00271 and 00272. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, risk mitigation). The Applicant merely made a conclusory statement.
Applicant argues on page 12
The present application at paragraph [00134] states: "The system provides a solution to a computer technology and massive data problem." It further explains that, by searching across the tree for threshold values and limiting the search to geographic regions of interest, "the computational load is exponentially reduced without any loss of the original data as the parameters of the distribution are retained in memory allowing for the full distribution to be recreated on demand… Amended claim 1 refers to this improvement and the underlying data structures.
The claimed improvement is to how a computer stores, indexes, and retrieves large amounts of data to provide the practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Limiting searching to a certain area of interest is merely improving a mental process step of searching which is considered an abstract idea. Searching is merely analyzing data to see what is relevant and what isn’t. In addition, the claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Applicant’s specification state in para 0003 that the claimed invention addresses the business problem of measuring climate financial risk and opportunity. Measuring financial risk and opportunity is a business problem and not a technical problem. A technical problem is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. In addition, the steps of indexing and retrieving are all mere data manipulation steps and the claims do not recite large amounts of data.
Applicant argues on page 13
An example non-conventional ordered combination includes: (1) the binomial scenario tree structure in which a single value representing upside or downside exposure is stored at each node in place of the full distribution; (2) storage of the resulting data structures as a hierarchical wide column array indexed by spatial and temporal identifiers; and (3) query-responsive retrieval that searches the tree for threshold values, traverses only the spatial and temporal identifiers for the node of interest, and recreates the full distribution at that node without re-computing the convolution of the micro risk factor distributions.
Those cases do not address a specifically structured storage of a single upside/downside value in place of a distribution, spatial-temporal indexed wide column array organization, or recreation of a distribution without recomputation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has described a data structure, storing data structures, and retrieving data which includes searching. These are mere abstract idea steps that do not provide an inventive concept. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity which include (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). In addition, the upside/downside value is merely a value that is stored. Examiner suggest to add more technical details beyond just storing a retrieving data.
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, 6-22, 24-27, 30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-27, 30 and 32-33 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-27, 30 and 32-33 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 19 and 30 recite the limitations of
…a climate risk model comprising a causal graph of nodes for risk factors and a knowledge graph defining an extracted relationship of the nodes, each node storing a quantitative uncertainty value derived for a time horizon, the causal graph having edges connecting the nodes to create scenario paths for the climate risk model, the knowledge graph of the nodes defining a network structure with links between nodes…generate integrated climate risk data structures for a plurality of macro risk factors, wherein the integrated climate risk data structures map the plurality of macro risk factors to geographic space and time…populate data in the causal graph and knowledge graph…by computing values for the plurality of macro risk factors for the time horizon using the integrated climate risk data structures, the values computed by a convolution of micro risk factor distributions to generate distribution measurements for the plurality of macro risk factors; generate multifactor scenario sets using the distribution measurements for the plurality of macro risk factors and the scenario paths for the climate risk model to compute the likelihood of different scenario paths for the climate risk model, the multifactor scenario sets representing combinations of the macro risk factors over a time horizon…
generates the multifactor scenario sets using the directed acyclic graph having the binomial scenario tree structure…reduces a search space of possible risk factor combinations using the binomial scenario tree structure…
generate risk metrics using the multifactor scenario sets and the knowledge graph;
responsive to a query received…specifying a geographic region of interest and a time horizon, retrieve a subset of the multifactor scenario sets by searching across the binomial scenario tree structure for threshold values and traversing the spatial identifier and the temporal identifier of the hierarchical wide column array for a node of interest, recreate a full distribution for the node of interest using the single value representing the upside or downside exposure stored at the node of interest, and transmit the recreated full distribution…
…transmit queries…to generate visual elements at least in part corresponding to the multifactor scenario sets
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of generating/creating, reducing, populating, computing, retrieving, searching, traversing, and transmitting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of computing device with a hardware processor, the claim language encompasses simply generating data structures, populating data by computing values, generating scenario sets, computing additional values with respect to the scenarios sets, generating risk metrics, transmitting risk metrics/queries, and generating visuals with respect to risk metrics and scenarios. The claims also recite the steps of retrieving data sets by search and traversing. The claims also recite recreating a data distribution. These are mere data manipulation steps that a user can do with pen and paper. For example, a user is able to compute values and generate data sets by using a pen and paper. A user is also able to search data and create a data distribution. These are merely data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The computer components are merely a tool to carry out the mental process steps.
The claims also recite risk metrics, risk data structures, and financial impact which are with respect to a business as seen para 00271 and 00272. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, risk mitigation). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of non-transitory memory, computer system, hardware processor, computer device, client application, and non-transitory computer readable medium. The claims also recite the additional elements that are considered insignificant extra solution activity such as storing as seen here
storing a climate risk model comprising a causal graph of nodes for climate risk factors and a knowledge graph defining an extracted relationship of the nodes
store the integrated climate risk data structures and the multifactor scenario sets in the …as a hierarchical wide column array indexed by a spatial identifier and a temporal identifier
storing
The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.
These components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional steps to determine micro risk factor distributions such as using Monte Carlo simulations. In addition, the dependent claims further describe what the risks relate to such as a financial impact.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Computer system, non-transitory memory, computer device, hardware processor, client application
Claim 3 and 21 recite monte carlo simulation
Claims 14 and 16 recite expert judgment system
Claim 17 recites machine learning
Claim 19 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 19 further recites non-transitory memory, hardware processor, client application, computer models.
Claim 30 recites non-transitory computer readable medium, hardware processor, client application, non-transitory memory.
Claim 32 recites Bayesian Directed Acyclic Network.
The additional elements also include limitations such as storing a climate risk model comprising a causal graph of nodes for climate risk factors and a knowledge graph defining an extracted relationship of the nodes store the integrated climate risk data structures and the multifactor scenario sets in the …as a hierarchical wide column array indexed by a spatial identifier and a temporal identifier storingsingle value representing the upside or downside exposure for the macro risk factor…
These limitations are seen as insignificant extra-solution activities that are considered as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions which include 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
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00303-00304.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 00303-00304. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 6-22, 24-27, 30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Shih (20190370708) who teaches carbon asset risk management.
Nagaoka (US20190026698A1) who teaches target values with respect to risks
Mun (US20150088783A1) who teaches probability distributions with respect to a forward method as well as extreme value theory.
Joshi (11797318) who teaches forward edges in a graph.
Smith (US20180101795A1) who teaches expert judgment with respect to causal influence relationships.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights