DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the response filed on 02/17/2026.
In response to applicant’s elections to claims received on 10/21/2025, Group II (claim 2-28) are elected.
Claim 1 is withdrawn. Claims 2-28 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 2-28 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments do not necessitate new grounds of rejections.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered however applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that similar to claim 1 of Example 42 of the 101 Examples, claim 2 of the present application recites a combination of additional elements including but not limited to obtaining risk values from external data sources, retrieving first predetermined weight values from a SQL database, applying the weight values, retrieving second predetermined weight values from the SQL database, applying the second predetermined weight values, retrieving third predetermined weight values from the SQL database, applying the third predetermined weight values, displaying a visual indicator, changing risk values and recalculating an overall risk using a second API, visually indicating all risk values that drop below a threshold in response to a changing risk value, transmitting an electronic alert to a device when a risk value exceeds a threshold, and visually changing a risk indicator as a risk value increases. Additionally, claim 2 specifies, by the one or more processors, based on the overall risk value, selectively ordering a quantity of the drug from the vendor. Claim 2 also specifies, by the one or more processors, transmitting an electronic alert to an associated device when one of the first, second, and third level risk values exceeds a second threshold. The claims, as wholes, integrate methods and systems into practical applications at least in view of the above. The additional elements recite specific improvements over prior art systems.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s suggestion that “Claim 2 is analogous to the patent eligibility of Claim 1 of Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42”, the Examiner maintains that, in contrast to claim 1 of Example 42, Applicant’s claims have not been shown to recite “a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.” The step in claim 1 of Example 42 for converting non-standardized information into a standardized format, by itself, is not relied on to support the conclusion of eligibility. Claim 1 of Example 42 recites, in part, steps for “providing remote access to users over a network so any one of the users can update the information about the patient’s condition in the collection of medical records in real time through a graphical user interface, wherein the one of the users provides the updated information in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users,” “converting, by a content server, the non-standardized updated information into the standardized format,” “automatically generating a message containing the updated information about the patient’s condition by the content server whenever updated information has been stored,” and “transmitting the message to all of the users over the computer network in real-time, so that each user has immediate access to up-to-date patient information,” both which are cited in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis or Example 42. These steps recited by claim 1 of Example 42 are relied on to support the conclusion that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Although applicant points to portions of claim 1 of Example 42, noting some similarities with applicant’s claim 1, Example 42 recites other features, such as the step for converting non-standardized input to a standardized format, and facilitating real-time sharing of patients’ medical records “in real-time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by a user.” Applicant’s claim 2 shares no similar features, nor yields any discernible improvement over prior art systems given that applicant’s claims employ known techniques and generic computing technology to perform the steps leading to the transmitting of a notification signal to a device of a second user.
The examiner further notes the claims are directed to calculating overall risk, recalculating risk if any attribute changes, and displaying results, which is an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, as well as organizing tracking information and a fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk, which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The recitation of generic computer components does not negate that the given limitation can be performed in mind.
The additional elements are directed to not limited to system, one or more processors, a first application programming interface (API), obtaining data from external sources, retrieving data from SQL database (recited at high level of generality amounts to gathering information for a data source), memory, by the one or more processors, in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk value for the vendor of the drug, displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk value of the vendor of the drug on a display(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), by the one or more processors, information retrieval using a second API (amounts to gathering information which is extra-solution activity), visually indicating on the display all of the first, second, and third level risk values that drop below a first threshold in response to the changing of the one of the first, second, and third level risk values(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), transmitting an electronic alert to an associated device when one of the first, second, and third level risk values exceeds a second threshold(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), visually changing a risk indicator as at least one of the first level, second level, third level, and overall risk values increases (amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity) (claims 2, 16, 17, and 27).
Further in accordance to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); and iv. 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.
The examiner notes the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. These elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
The applicant asserts that in accordance to the memorandum to Examiners titled “Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” ("The Memorandum") on 4 August 2025. The Memorandum notes that Examiners are reminded that if it is a "close call" as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility. Applicant asserts that that The Memorandum notes to Examiners that the mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The MPEP and the AI-SME Update provide examples of claim limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The claim limitations here cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that The Memorandum does not change the thrust of the 101 rejection or the underlying eligibility analysis. The examiner further notes the claims are directed to calculating overall risk, recalculating risk if any attribute changes, and displaying results, which is an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, as well as organizing tracking information and a fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk, which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The recitation of generic computer components does not negate that the given limitation can be performed in mind. The examiner further notes the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”). The examiner notes to calculating overall risk, recalculating risk if any attribute changes, and displaying results are steps that can be performed mentally or with the aid pencil and paper.
The examiner further refers applicant to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for additional guidance and examples where 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: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)); ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”); and iv. 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.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning the 101 rejections are not persuasive and the rejection is therefore 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 2-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
Step 1. In accordance to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted the claimed a method (claims 2-15), a system (claim 16), a method (claims 17-26), and a method (claims 27-28) are directed to eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, article of manufacture, and a machine). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A. In accordance to Step 2A Prong One, it is noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, as well as organizing tracking information and a fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk, which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The recitation of generic computer components does not negate that the given limitation can be performed in mind. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 2, the claim recites the steps of: A method of ordering a drug from a vendor of the drug, the method comprising: by one or more processors, using a first application programming interface (API),obtaining first level risk values associated with the vendor of the drug from two or more external data sources, the first level risk values representing real world quantities used to evaluate risk; by the one or more processors, retrieving first predetermined weight values associated with the first level risk values, respectively, from a SQL database; by the one or more processors, applying the first predetermined weight values to the first level risk values to obtain weighted first level risk values, respectively; by the one or more processors, calculating second level risk values associated with the vendor based on the weighted first level risk values; by the one or more processors, retrieving second predetermined weight values associated with the second level risk values, respectively, from the SQL database; by the one or more processors, applying the second predetermined weight values to the second level risk values to obtain weighted second level risk values, respectively; by the one or more processors, calculating third level risk values associated with the vendor based on the weighted second level risk values; by the one or more processors, retrieving third predetermined weight values associated with the third level risk values, respectively, from the SQL database; by the one or more processors, applying the third predetermined weight values to the third level risk values to obtain weighted third level risk values, respectively; by the one or more processors, calculating an overall risk value associated with the vendor based the weighted third level risk values; by the one or more processors, in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk value for the vendor of the drug, displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk value of the vendor of the drug on a display, by the one or more processors, changing one of the first, second, and third level risk values and recalculating the overall risk value using the changed one of the first, second, and third level risk values via retrieval using a second API; by the one or more processors, visually indicating on the display all of the first, second, and third level risk values that drop below a first threshold in response to the changing of the one of the first, second, and third level risk values; by the one or more processors, transmitting an electronic alert to an associated device when one of the first, second, and third level risk values exceeds a second threshold; by the one or more processors, visually changing a risk indicator as at least one of the first level, second level, third level, and overall risk values increases; and by the one or more processors, based on the overall risk value, selectively ordering a quantity of the drug from the vendor. Claims 16, 17, and 27 recite substantially the same limitation as claim 1, and therefore subject to the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to system, one or more processors, a first application programming interface (API), obtaining data from external sources, retrieving data from SQL database (recited at high level of generality amounts to gathering information for a data source), memory, by the one or more processors, in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk value for the vendor of the drug, displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk value of the vendor of the drug on a display(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), by the one or more processors, information retrieval using a second API (amounts to gathering information which is extra-solution activity), visually indicating on the display all of the first, second, and third level risk values that drop below a first threshold in response to the changing of the one of the first, second, and third level risk values(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), transmitting an electronic alert to an associated device when one of the first, second, and third level risk values exceeds a second threshold(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), visually changing a risk indicator as at least one of the first level, second level, third level, and overall risk values increases (amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [0174]-[0182] and [0253]-[0256] and [0303] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) are directed to: system, one or more processors, a first application programming interface (API), obtaining data from external sources, retrieving data from SQL database (recited at high level of generality amounts to gathering information for a data source), memory, by the one or more processors, in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk value for the vendor of the drug, displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk value of the vendor of the drug on a display(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), by the one or more processors, information retrieval using a second API (amounts to gathering information which is extra-solution activity), visually indicating on the display all of the first, second, and third level risk values that drop below a first threshold in response to the changing of the one of the first, second, and third level risk values(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), transmitting an electronic alert to an associated device when one of the first, second, and third level risk values exceeds a second threshold(amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity), visually changing a risk indicator as at least one of the first level, second level, third level, and overall risk values increases (amounts to displaying information which is extra-solution activity). These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Figs. 1 and 28, and paragraphs [0174]-[0182] and [0253]-[0256] and [0303]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”). Further, in terms of the limitations of multiple APIs and SQL databases to collect and retrieve information, the additional elements are disclosed in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer court case, below can be found evidence provided by the Examiner that provides, based on 2B analysis, how the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for consistency with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer and MPEP 2106.5(d). This is supported by the fact that the disclosure does not provide the details necessary to provide significantly more than the abstract idea performed on a general-purpose computer and therefore not significantly more. Prior art references teach the limitations of multiple APIs and SQL databases to collect and retrieve information is a known technique. Thus, the use of multiple APIs and SQL databases, as recognized in art, which predate Applicant’s invention. As disclosed in Song et al. (US Pub. No 2007/0265870 A1) “[0098] Application executable instructions/APIs 1540 may include one or more application program interfaces (APIs). The system(s) and method(s) of the present invention may use APIs 1540 for inter-process communication and to request and return inter-application function calls. For example, an API may be provided in conjunction with a database 1565 in order to facilitate the development of, for example, SQL scripts useful to cause the database to perform particular data storage or retrieval operations in accordance with the instructions specified in the script(s)”. Therefore, as shown by cited prior art references, the 2B features of the invention are “routine and conventional.” It is when the claims are wholly directed to the abstract idea without anything significantly more in the claims that the claims are deemed to preempt or monopolize the exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
Furthermore MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) sets forth the following:
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.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec…; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC…; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc…; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc…;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook…; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life…;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp…; Ultramercial…;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc…;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank…; and
A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc…
…Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) …
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea (i.e., claims 9/22 recite a database and claims 7/20 recite an electronic drug query. Under Step 2A, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Under Step 2B, these elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph 0252 and figure 1) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter.) without additional element that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 3-15, 18-26, and 28 have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 2-28 would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closest prior art of record is Taylor (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0006130 A1), Ho (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0060771 A1), and Heinrich (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0046128 A1). While Tyalor, a system and method for calculating risk, teaches obtaining first level risks associated with [entity/source], retrieving first predetermined weight values associated with the first level risks, respectively, from memory; applying the first predetermined weight values to the first level risks to obtain weighted first level risks, respectively, calculating second level risks associated [entity]based on the weighted first level risks; retrieving second predetermined weight values associated with the second level risks, respectively, from memory applying the second predetermined weight values to the second level risks to obtain weighted second level risks, respectively, calculating third level risks associated with the vendor based on the weighted second level risks, retrieving third predetermined weight values associated with the third level risks, respectively, from memory, applying the third predetermined weight values to the third level risks to obtain weighted third level risks, respectively calculating an overall risk associated with [entity] based the weighted third level risks. Ho, a system and method of computing risk calculation associated with a drug vendor, teaches obtaining data associated with a vendor of a drug. Heinrich, a system and a method of computing risk, teaches displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk of the vendor of the drug on a display in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk for the vendor of the drug. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches translating the first data into first level risk values associated with the vendor of the drug, the first level risk values representing real world quantities used to evaluate risk, in response to receipt of user input for the overall risk for the vendor of the drug, displaying a visual indicator of the overall risk of the vendor of the drug on a display, by the one or more processors, changing one of the first, second, and third level risks and recalculating the overall risk using the changed one of the first, second, and third level risks; by the one or more processors, visually indicating on the display all of the first, second, and third level risks that drop below a first threshold in response to the changing of the one of the first, second, and third level risks in the manner as claimed and by the one or more processors, visually changing a risk indicator as at least one of the first level, second level, third level, and overall risk values increases, and this combination is not previously taught in the prior art of record, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 2-28 are allowable over the prior art of record as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140019471 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING MULTIPLE SUPPLY CHAINS
Linton; Thomas K. et al.
US 20020178046 A1
Product and service risk management clearinghouse
Lawrence, David
US 20090187528 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING RISK
Morrell; Robert Craig et al
US 7006992 B1
Risk assessment and management system
Packwood; Thomas R.
US 20130197963 A1
System and Method for Calculating a Risk to an Entity
Deb; Subhajit et al.
US 20030149613 A1
Computer-implemented system and method for performance assessment
Cohen, Marc-David et al.
US 7359865 B1
Generating a risk assessment regarding a software implementation project
Connor; Douglas F. et al.
US 20130226652 A1
RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Bilello; Ubaldo G. et al.
US 20150242777 A1
Category-Driven Risk Identification
Wilcox; Richard E. et al.
NPL
Soft computing-based risk level calculation algorithms
Márta Takács
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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625