DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 2 have been presented for examination. Claim 1 is currently amended.
The instant office action relies on Taghavi et al. (US 2014/0278306) and “Oracle Crystal Ball, Fusion Edition” by Oracle, Release 11.1.2, which are cited on the IDS.
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 .
Response to Rejection of Claims 1-2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101).
Response to Rejection of Claims 1-2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 As Allegedly Being Unpatentable In View Of U.S. 2014/0278306 to Taghavi et al. In View of Oracle Crystal Ball (11.1.2)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “In contrast, not only does Taghavi fail to teach at least "determining, randomly with the computing circuit, which of the first number of the second number of simulation rials to run," as recited in claim 1, Taghavi teaches away from this. Referring to Taghavi's FIG. 5B and paragraphs [0076] - [0077], Taghavi does not determine, randomly, in which simulation periods an event occurs but instead assumes in which simulation periods an event occurs based on the implied rate of the event. For example, the fifth sentence of Taghavi's paragraph [0076] states "[i]nstead of simulating event 101 in 20 random simulation periods, the assumption here is that it happens at periods 1, 6, 11, 16, and 3, 8, 13, 18, i.e., the periods where the remainder is 1 or 3 when divided by 5." ” (emphasis added)
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “determine, randomly, in which simulation periods an event occurs”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the claim 1 limitation (see emphasis in Applicant’s arguments above) merely amounts to randomly determining which of a subset of simulation trials to run. For example, determining randomly to run only one of the first number of simulation trials, and not necessarily all of the them. This is in contrast to randomly determining which of the second number of simulation trials correspond to the first number of simulation trials.
Further, Taghavi explicitly teaches that the events can be assigned randomly to periods, as contrasted with only deterministically as argued by Applicant (see Taghavi Paragraph 115 “Step (i) Assign the First Event Randomly Over Np”). Therefore, Taghavi does not teach away from random period assignment since it does not disparage it, nor is the deterministic period assignment preferred (see MPEP 2123(I) “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”).
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 – 2 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.
With regard to claim 1, it recites “determining, randomly with the computing circuit, which of the first number of the second number of simulation trials to run”. Examiner notes that there is explicitly disclosed randomly determining which trials an event occurs (see the instant application Paragraph 59 and 62 “In some aspects, nMax unique random integers between 1 and 10,000 may be generated to indicate the trials where an event occurs”) and randomly determining the total number of significant trials (i.e., determining a first number of a second number of simulation trials) (see the instant application Paragraph 94 “The process of trial generation begins with (l) simulating the total number of significant trials, nMax, in a chosen manner, i.e. as a Poisson process.”). Looking to the recited limitation, it amounts to merely randomly running a subset of the first number of simulation trials, which is not covered by the disclosed embodiments discussed above: 1) randomly indicating in which simulation periods/trials an events occurs, or 2) randomly determining the total number of trials in which an event occurs. Examiner notes that Applicant provides a conclusory statement that the no new matter is added (see Arguments, Page 3 “After entry of the preceding claim amendment, claim 1 is currently amended and claim 2 is as previously presented. But the claim amendments add no new matter to the patent application”). Looking to Applicant’s arguments, they are in line with the disclosed embodiments and arguing features which are not positively recited (i.e., “simulation period”) (see Applicant’s arguments Page 4, Bottom “Taghavi does not determine, randomly, in which simulation periods an event occurs”). Examiner suggests clarifying the limitation based on the disclosed embodiments.
With regard to claim 2, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting limitations to overcome the deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, it recites the limitation “running, on the computing circuit, the determined first number of the simulation trials during which the event occurs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it first recites “determining [] a first number of a second number of simulation trials during which an event occurs” and later recites “determining [] which of the first number of the second number of simulation trials to run”. Although the limitation recites “running” which appears to have antecedent basis back to the later recited “to run”, it explicitly recites running the first number of trials “during which the event occurs” which would be all of them and not a subset as in the earlier limitation (see remarks above regarding the later recited “determining”). The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as having antecedent basis back to the later “determining … to run”.
With regard to claim 2, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting limitations to overcome the deficiency.
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 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for generating and storing trial outcomes of a stochastic simulation of an entity, the method comprising: determining a first number of a second number of simulation trials during which an event occurs, the first number being less than the second number; determining, randomly, which of the first number of the second number of simulation trials to run; and associating at least one result value associated with the occurrence of the event with each of the run first number of simulation trials, at least one result value associated with the occurrence of the event and representing a level that the event affected the entity. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” comprises evaluations and/or judgements based on the outcomes of “simulation trails”. The “associating” requires no more than generically linking another value with each of “simulation trials” which can be practically performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the “determining” and “associating” are with a computer circuit; running, on the computing circuit, the determined first number of the simulation trials during which the event occurs; storing, using the computing circuit, as a record in a database for each of the run first number of simulation trials, the associated at least one result value such that the database accurately represents all of the outcomes of the second number of simulation trials for which the event can occur; and displaying the stored record for each of the run first number of simulation trials. The “computing circuit” with regard to the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “running” is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how a “first number of the simulation trials” is implemented both algorithmically and tangibly. Specifically, the “simulating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” with regard to tangibly realizing a “first number of simulation trials”. The “storing” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is implemented using generic computer components (i.e. a record in a database). Although the “storing” is specific with regard to the data that is being stored, both the manner in which the database is utilized and the form in which the data exists on said database is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “displaying” amounts to insignificant data outputting. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “computing circuit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “running” amount(s) to reciting the words “apply it”. The “storing” and “displaying” amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it is implemented with generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually since the “running” and “storing” and “displaying” require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recite(s) the same statutory category at Step 1 as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): wherein the determining, the associating, are performed for each of at least two entities; wherein the method further comprises aggregating the at least one result value of the at least one record of the first entity with the at least one result value of the at least one record with the second entity. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “the determining, the associating, are performed for each of at least two entities” amounts to repeating the parent claim “determining” and “associating” which does not preclude performance in the mind. The “aggregating” no more than generically combining values which can be practically performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that determining, associating, and aggregating are using the computer circuit; wherein the running, and the storing are performed for each of at least two entities resulting in a plurality of records associated with a first entity and a second entity. The “computing circuit” with regard to the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “the running … is performed for each of at least two entities” amounts to merely repeating the parent claim “running” for a plurality of entities, which amounts to repeatedly reciting the words “apply it” as discussed in the parent claim. The “the storing is performed for each of at least two entities resulting in a plurality of records” amounts to merely repeating the parent claim “storing” for a plurality entities, which amounts to repeated insignificant data outputting as discussed in the parent claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “computing circuit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “the running … is performed for each of at least two entities” amount(s) to repeatedly reciting the words “apply it”. The “the storing is performed for each of at least two entity’s resulting in a plurality of records” amounts to repeated well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it is implemented with generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Looking to the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than considering them individually since the “running” and “storing” require no more than generic computer functions. Further, merely performing repeated “running” and “storing” cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghavi et al. (US 2014/0278306) (henceforth “Taghavi (306)”) in view of “Oracle Crystal Ball, Fusion Edition” by Oracle, Release 11.1.2 (henceforth “Crystal Ball (11.1.2)”). Taghavi (306) and Crystal Ball (11.1.2) are analogous art since they are in the same field of stochastic simulation, and since they solve the same problem of stochastically simulating and processing events.
With regard to claim 1, Taghavi (306) teaches a method for generating and storing trial outcomes of a stochastic simulation of an entity, the method comprising: (Taghavi (306) Abstract)
determining, with a computing circuit, a first number of a second number of simulation trials during which an event occurs, the first number being less than the second number; (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 68 periods in which the event occurred are tabulated
PNG
media_image1.png
399
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and Figure 4 an example machine comprising a processor)
determining, randomly with the computing circuit, which of the first number of the second number of trials to run (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 34 losses for all the events can be generated for an ordered list of events in a table (determining which first number of trials to run) “Losses to the portfolio are then calculated for each event in the WPET by financial engine processing 109.”, and Paragraph 115 the ordering of the events itself is random (determining randomly) “Step (i) Assign the First Event Randomly Over Np”)
running, on the computing circuit, the determined first number of the simulation trials during which the event occurs; (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 76 only period in which an event occurred are simulated based on the PET results “Now consider the same example, this time modeled using the weighted PET approach. First, start with simulating 5 periods. Event 101 will be simulated twice, say on periods 1 and 3, and no other event will be simulated”)
associating, using the computing circuit, with each of the run first number of simulation trials, at least one result value associated with the occurrence of the event and representing a level that the event affected the entity; and (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 31 and 34 each event that occurred (associated with each of the first number) has an associated loss for the city in which the earthquake occurred (a level that the event affected the entity)
PNG
media_image2.png
154
349
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
storing, using the computing circuit, as a row in a table for each of the run first number of the simulation trials, the associated at least one result value such that the table accurately represents all of the outcomes of the second number of simulation trials for which the event can occur. (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 65 each simulation trial can be represented as a line in a table (storing at a row in a table), reduced to only the periods in which the event occurred (accurately represents all of the outcomes of the first number for which the event occurred) “In contrast, WPET representation requires a PET with only 3e6 rows (an order of 3e7 smaller)”, and Paragraph 34 a loss is determined specifically for each event mapping directly to each line in the WPET (the associated at least one result value) “Losses to the portfolio are then calculated for each event in the WPET by financial engine processing 109.”)
Taghavi (306) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that each simulation trials of the first number is stored as a record in a database; displaying the stored record for each of the run first number of simulation trials.
However Crystal Ball (11.1.2) teaches:
storing, as a record in a database, for each of a number of simulation trials during which an event occurred, an associated at least one result value; displaying the stored record for each of the run first number of simulation trials (Crystal Ball (11.1.2) Page 88, Top simulation results can be saved to a file, and Page 417 the file used to store the data can be a worksheet (stored in a database) “worksheet a Microsoft Excel file in which you work and store the data. A worksheet is part of a workbook.”, and Figure 79 different simulation run output values are stored in separate rows (storing each simulation trials as a record in a database) as part of a GUI (displaying the stored record)
PNG
media_image3.png
487
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stochastic simulation system disclosed by Taghavi (306) with the saving of stochastic simulation results in Excel workbooks disclosed by Crystal Ball (11.1.2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to load the results at a later time further analysis (Crystal Ball (11.1.2) Page 89).
With regard to claim 2, Taghavi (306) in view of Crystal Ball (11.1.2) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the running, the determining, the associating, and the storing are performed using the computing circuit for each of at least two entities resulting in a plurality of records associated with a first entity and a second entity, and (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 88 – 89 multiple events and different perils can be simulated occurring in the same period, where the second peril is also represented as an event occurrence)
aggregating, using the computer circuit, the at least one result value of the at least one record of the first entity with the at least one result value of the at least one record of the second entity (Taghavi (306) Paragraph 34 losses from different events occurring the same time period can be used to generate a further single output value (aggregate a first result value with a second result value) “Losses to the portfolio are then calculated for each event … The results are then used for generation of a risk output”)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either to specific areas or as direct language, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore the lack of a citation to other portions which inform the interpretation of the cited portions, is in no way intended to exclude said other portions. Any direct language, as shown with quotation marks, is intended solely to further point out the teachings provided to one of ordinary skill in the art, and is in no way intended to limit the relied upon teachings to only the quoted portions existing in a vacuum.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hinsberg, III et al. (US 5446870) teaches randomly selecting a simulated event for the time step and updating the system condition data group representing the system state resulting from the occurrence of the selected simulated event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187