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 Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 02/10/2024.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 filed on 02/10/2024 is currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1, even if the claim was directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claim is directed to the abstract idea of organizational risk management and recommendations.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “This invention, the Heuristic Risk Management, will allow for industry-agnostic implementation of heuristics in business and technical organizations and will give more procedural and financial fidelity to all phases of commerce, including development and operations”
The limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for organizational risk management and recommendations. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “Systems Using Recommendation Engines”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “Systems Using Recommendation Engines”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se. Applicant has claimed “Heuristic Risk Management Systems Using Recommendation Engines”. The recommendation engine is a software system, specifically a type of information filtering system, that uses algorithms to suggest items to users. These algorithms analyze user data and predict preferences to personalize recommendations on platforms like e-commerce sites, streaming services, and social media. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, since the system does not comprise physical elements, it can be interpreted as software elements, i.e. printed matter. Printed matter is not statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. As a result, this claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Falque-Pierrotin et al. (US-20080235067 A1) hereinafter Pierrotin.
Regarding claim 1. Pierrotin teaches This invention, the Heuristic Risk Management Systems Using Recommendation Engines, will allow for industry-agnostic implementation of heuristics in business and technical organizations and will give more procedural and financial fidelity to all phases of commerce, including development and operations [Pierrotin, para. 0006, Pierrotin teaches “In an aspect, a computer-implemented method of generating a supplier recommendation for a product outside of an existing network is disclosed, including: observing, by a decision making engine, a set of heuristics; running, by the decision making engine, a plurality of optimization solutions; and selecting, by the decision making engine, from the plurality of optimization solutions, the supplier that matches the set of heuristics” wherein a heuristic approach for risk management evaluation. Wherein the decision-making engine is equivalent to the claimed recommendation engine. Further, para. 0026 teaches “The e-commerce platform 100 may provide a financial facility 120 for secure financial transactions with customers, such as through a secure card server environment. The e-commerce platform 100 may store credit card information, such as in payment card industry data (PCI) environments (e.g., a card server), to reconcile financials, bill merchants, perform automated clearing house (ACH) transfers between an e-commerce platform 100 financial institution account and a merchant's back account (e.g., when using capital), and the like. The financial facility 120 may also provide merchants with financial support, such as through the lending of capital (e.g., lending funds, cash advances, and the like) and provision of insurance. In addition, the e-commerce platform 100 may provide for a set of marketing and partner services and control the relationship between the e-commerce platform 100 and partners. They also may connect and onboard new merchants with the e-commerce platform 100. These services may enable merchant growth by making it easier for merchants to work across the e-commerce platform 100. Through these services, merchants may be provided help facilities via the e-commerce platform 100” wherein “The e-commerce platform 100 may provide a financial facility 120 for secure financial transactions with customers” is equivalent to “financial fidelity to operations” and “The financial facility 120 may also provide merchants with financial support, such as through the lending of capital (e.g., lending funds, cash advances, and the like) and provision of insurance” is equivalent to “financial fidelity to developments”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623