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 of the claims
Claims 1, 23 and 24 are amended.
Claims 17 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-16, 19-24 are pending.
Response to arguments
Amendment overcomes 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ) rejection for only claim 1. 35 U.S.C 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ) rejection is maintained for independent claims 23 and 24.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that amended claim 1, recites, technology-specific improvements that extend beyond an abstract concept of survey risk reduction of a vessel.
In particular, the claim now requires generate and calibrate an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model visualizing the vessel, the class-related risk profiling capability and the system and components associated with risks in vessel, where the interactive three-dimensional(3D) model is linked to finite element analysis software program. They present few specific advantages which is not the technological solution to a technological problem. For example, this invention helps facilitating both survey optimization and survey risk reduction by targeting data-driven crediting by scope optimization via risk profiling focusing on high-risk items only,
Another advantage they mentioned, allowing surveyors to derive the benefits of both the user’s use of data analytics and direct use of data analytic and AI. Another advantage they mentioned, determining live risk associated with the actual vessel’s sensor and contextual data due to live stream of near real-time sharing of information pertaining to route history, weather and met-ocean exposure, equipment sensor data, hull sensors is not an improvement of the functioning of a computer or improvement of technical field.
Above technical advantages presents in spec[0007] are not a technical improvement. Additionally, the claim itself does not reflect the disclosed any improvement as a whole (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Typically, generating a 3D model and calibrating it based on sensor data is not place the claim in a suitable position to overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 since there is no clear technological improvement. As, such, the rejection is maintained.
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 23-24 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.
Claims 23 and 24 recite “automatically generate an alert….”,” wherein the alert activates the interface…”,
However, the above limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the alert activates the interface to cause the alert to be exported. The relevant portion of the specification states that para[0083] “Alerts from the dashboard may be then exported to the survey reporting tool.”
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-16,19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 24 is directed towards a system and
Claim 23 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Therefore, claims 1, 23 and 24 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1:
A method comprising, by one or more computing systems: accessing a plurality of data profiles associated with a vessel, wherein the plurality of data profiles comprise at least:
a first data profile configured for assessing condition or integrity risks associated with the vessel, wherein the first data profile is generated based on one or more of transactional data, time-series sensor data, or contextual data;
a second data profile configured for assessing statutory, regulatory, and port state control;
a third data profile configured for assessing quality of one or more management systems;
a fourth data profile configured for assessing class trend associated with one or more sister vessels; and
a fifth data profile configured for assessing sustainability based on fuel consumption and emissions;
analyzing the accessed data profiles by a predictive compliance model configured for quantifying and assessing an overall risk associated with vessels being out of compliance with one or more standards, wherein the predictive compliance model comprises one or more data models and one or more computational models;
determining, based on the analysis, a class-related risk profiling capability and one or more risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance;
generating an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model visualizing (1) the vessel, (2) the class-related risk profiling capability, and (3) the systems and components associated with the one or more risks in the visualized vessel, wherein the interactive 3D model is linked to one or more finite element analysis software programs for managing the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks; and
calibrating the interactive 3D model based on sensor data collected from hull sensors installed in the vessel.
Claim 23:
One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to:
access a plurality of data profiles associated with a vessel, wherein the plurality of data profiles comprise at least:
a first data profile configured for assessing condition or integrity risks associated with the vessel, wherein the first data profile is generated based on one or more of transactional data, time-series sensor data, or contextual data;
a second data profile configured for assessing statutory, regulatory, and port state control;
a third data profile configured for assessing quality of one or more management systems;
a fourth data profile configured for assessing class trend associated with one or more sister vessels; and a fifth data profile configured for assessing sustainability based on fuel consumption and emissions;
analyze the accessed data profiles by a predictive compliance model configured for quantifying and assessing an overall risk associated with vessels being out of compliance with one or more standards, wherein the predictive compliance model comprises one or more data models and one or more computational models;
determine, based on the analysis, a class-related risk profiling capability and one or more risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance;
automatically generate an alert comprising the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance;
generate an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model visualizing (1) the vessel, (2) the class-related risk profiling capability, and (3) the systems and components associated with the one or more risks in the visualized vessel, wherein the interactive 3D model is linked to one or more finite element analysis software programs for managing the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks; and
calibrate the interactive 3D model based on sensor data collected from hull sensors installed in the vessel.
Claim 24:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors operable when executing the instructions to:
access a plurality of data profiles associated with a vessel, wherein the plurality of data profiles comprise at least:
a first data profile configured for assessing condition or integrity risks associated with the vessel, wherein the first data profile is generated based on one or more of transactional data, time-series sensor data, or contextual data;
a second data profile configured for assessing statutory, regulatory, and port state control;
a third data profile configured for assessing quality of one or more management systems;
a fourth data profile configured for assessing class trend associated with one or more sister vessels; and
a fifth data profile configured for assessing sustainability based on fuel consumption and emissions;
analyze the accessed data profiles by a predictive compliance model configured for quantifying and assessing an overall risk associated with vessels being out of compliance with one or more standards, wherein the predictive compliance model comprises one or more data models and one or more computational models;
determine, based on the analysis, a class-related risk profiling capability and one or more risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance;
automatically generate an alert comprising the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance;
generate an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model visualizing (1) the vessel, (2) the class-related risk profiling capability, and (3) the systems and components associated with the one or more risks in the visualized vessel, wherein the interactive 3D model is linked to one or more finite element analysis software programs for managing the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks; and
calibrate the interactive 3D model based on sensor data collected from hull sensors installed in the vessel.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 1, highlighted(bold) above merely consist of accessing plurality of data profile (first, second, third, fourth and fifth data profiles) as an observation, analyzing the accessed data (evaluation), and determining a class-related profiling capability(judgement), and generating and calibrating a 3D model based on the sensor data.
The method in claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human process and, therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 1, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to analyzing the accessed data to generate an alert to improve risk profiling capability. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves mitigating risk and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (such as generating a 3D model and calibrating that 3D model using sensor data). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A method comprising, by one or more computing systems” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determining step).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “A method comprising, by one or more computing systems: accessing a plurality of data profiles associated with a vessel, wherein the plurality of data profiles comprises at least:
a first data profile configured for assessing condition or integrity risks associated with the vessel, wherein the first data profile is generated based on one or more of transactional data, time-series sensor data, or contextual data;
a second data profile configured for assessing statutory, regulatory, and port state control;
a third data profile configured for assessing quality of one or more management systems;
a fourth data profile configured for assessing class trend associated with one or more sister vessels; and
a fifth data profile configured for assessing sustainability based on fuel consumption and emissions;”
generating an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model visualizing (1) the vessel, (2) the class-related risk profiling capability, and (3) the systems and components associated with the one or more risks in the visualized vessel, wherein the interactive 3D model is linked to one or more finite element analysis software programs for managing the class-related risk profiling capability and the one or more risks; and
calibrating the interactive 3D model based on sensor data collected from hull sensors installed in the vessel.
amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to access profile to apply an exception using a generic computer component to generate an interactive three-dimensional (3D) model and calibrating that model based on the sensor data collected form the hull sensor cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-16,19-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16, 19-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]. Therefore, claim(s) 1-16,19-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights