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 claims
Claims 1, 23 and 24 are amended.
No new claim is added. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record.
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 1-16, 19-24 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 1, 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 2-16,19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Response to arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is not moot based on amended claims. Therefore, Examiner maintains 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Step 2A, Prong two-
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.”
Regrading claim 1, (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
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;
automatically generating 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;
providing, via an interface on a client system, the alert to a user, wherein the alert activates the interface to cause the alert to be exported to a survey planning tool;
detecting, via the interface, updated data associated with one or more of the data profiles; and
updating the class-related risk profiling capability and one or more of the risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance based on analyzing the updated data by the predictive compliance model.
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), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computing system is claimed to access various data profiles, generate and provide an alert,; and update the capability meaning computer is operating the ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
At a minimum, the claims include limitations that reflect an improvement to applying the alleged abstract idea in another meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the idea to a particular environment. The amended claims do not overcome 35 U.S.C. 101,so the rejection 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.
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;
automatically generating 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;
providing, via an interface on a client system, the alert to a user, wherein the alert activates the interface to cause the alert to be exported to a survey planning tool;
detecting, via the interface, updated data associated with one or more of the data profiles; and
updating the class-related risk profiling capability and one or more of the risks of systems and components associated with the vessel with respect to condition and class compliance based on analyzing the updated data by the predictive compliance model.
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 updating class-related profiling capability, one or more maintenance activities.
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. 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).
Regarding the additional limitations of “automatically generating 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;
providing, via an interface on a client system, the alert to a user, wherein the alert activates the interface to cause the alert to be exported to a survey planning tool;
detecting, via the interface, updated data associated with one or more of the data profiles” is data outputting (simple generating a message) and providing those output data/alert to the user.
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;”
automatically generating 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;
providing, via an interface on a client system, the alert to a user, wherein the alert activates the interface to cause the alert to be exported to a survey planning tool;
detecting, via the interface, updated data associated with one or more of the data profiles; and
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 cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 23 and 24 are also rejected using the same reasons and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Dependent claims2-16,19-22 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
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