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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on April 17, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 7-9, 13, 18-20.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the invention improves the functioning of the computer. The Examiner notes that this statement is not supported by evidence. Amended claims disclose training application specific risk scoring circuitry, this risk scoring circuitry comprising a risk scoring model and neural network. Specifics on how either the model or the neural network is “trained” are absent from the disclosure. Other circuitry embodied in the claims is disclosed to identify, score, detect, determine, and generate, a cross-section of information concerning assets, risk patterns, contributing factors, policy, and presenting information in the form of a heat map and insights evaluated risks. The mechanisms of this circuitry that improves the functioning of a computer is not disclosed.
Applicant also argues the existence of a practical application. The claims disclose only a single model and a computer that trains the scoring circuitry. A neural network, a specialized form of machine learning is disclosed. It is not disclosed how training the neural network occurs, so there is no support for a practical application based on training the neural network. It is not evident that the additional elements are integrated to perform a new or innovative function. Each of the additional elements, the circuitry, devices, hardware, and neural network appear to provide routine extra-solution activity- performing the functions expected for an information processing apparatus or medium. Claim 20 discloses that software causes the apparatus to perform the functions described in the claims. Independent claims also disclose that the insight report created and the heat map are output to a user device, indicating that any action to be taken based on the reports generated by the invention rely on a human (user) to initiate action, which is not indicative of a practical application. Applicant’s arguments of a parallel to Example 47 omit the actions taken as part of the method of Example 47 to drop packets in real time and block future traffic, hence not meeting the standard of a Practical Application.
The Examiner concludes that the claims present the invention as software devised for a specific purpose, run on a generic processor and output to a user device for additional action. This is a case of “Apply It,” and does not represent a practical application.
In view of the above, the rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments overcome cited prior
art and rejections to independent claims 1, 13, and 20 will be withdrawn. Dependent claims
2-9, 11, and 14-22 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 13, and 20.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9, 11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-9, 11, 13-22 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea of providing insight into the risks inherent in an organizations’ entities and assets, and their underlying causes, leading to recommendations for those assets.
Claim 1 discloses: A method for generating an insight report for an entity, the method
comprising:
identifying, an entity asset set for the entity, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein (i) the entity asset set comprises a plurality of entity assets associated with the entity, (ii) each entity asset is associated with an entity asset type, and (iii) each entity asset is further associated with a geographic area; training, based on historical data, to detect patterns associated with contributing risk factors,
detecting, based on a corresponding entity asset type and a corresponding geographic area, a contributing factor associated with a risk, wherein the risk comprises at least one of an operational risk, an environmental risk, a weather risk, a regulatory risk, a reputational risk, or a human rights risk; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining, based on the contributing factor, an entity physical nature risk score and an entity transitional nature risk score for each entity asset; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating, based on a corresponding entity physical nature risk score and a corresponding entity transitional nature risk score, an insight for each entity asset, wherein each insight is indicative of an inferred cause for at least one of the corresponding entity physical nature risk score and the corresponding entity transitional nature risk score associated with the entity asset; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating, based on the entity physical nature risk score and the entity transitional nature risk score for each entity asset, a risk heat map identifying the risk, wherein (a) the risk heat map is associated with a risk score type and (b) the risk heat map is a visual representation of at least one of the entity physical nature risk score and the entity transitional nature risk score for each entity asset; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, mitigating risk, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating, the insight report for the entity, wherein the insight report comprises the insight for each entity asset and the risk heat map;
and outputting, to a user.
Additional limitations employ the method to determine entity management policies and one or more operating rules to determine insights, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 2), to determine optimal entity management policies and operating rules to result in a maximum risk score for the entity asset, and one or more optimal management policies that are missing from the entity policy management set, and generating a recommended policy set of one or more policies that were not included in the policy management set and the including this in the insight report, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - claim 3), to determine an implementation cost estimate for optimal entity policy, generating an implementation service offer including a financial instrument offer covering at least a portion of the cost estimate and providing an offer message including each generated implemented service offer for the optimal entity management policies, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, marketing or sales activities, - claim 4), identifying candidate entity assets, determining geographic area associated with the asset, and generating the entity asset set for the entity, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 5), receiving resource consumption metrics for the entity where determining a risk score is based on the consumption set for the asset, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk - claim 6), receiving an indication of an asset by type, determining candidate geographic areas for the future asset, determining the risk score for the geographic area, determining based on the risk score, recommended areas and providing a future entity asset recommendation response by geographic area, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk- claim 7), receiving a scenario request a predicted risk score for each entity, predicted insights for each entity with cause for the risk, and providing a scenario response that includes the insights, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk- claim 8), determining based on risk scores, a global risk score, and global insights for the entity, with the insight indicative of the inferred risk for the entity, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk- claim 9), determining comparative entries in an industry and based on risk score, ranking the entity risks, to be included in the report, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk- claim 11), where the risk heat map is presented to users, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 21), and wherein the information comprises at least one of an associated entity physical nature risk score, an entity transitional nature risk score, a type of entity asset, an associated geographic area, an insight, an entity policy management set, a recommended policy set, associated implementation offers, and an entity asset type requirement set, (following rules and instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mitigating risk – claim 22).
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on mitigating risk and calculating costs, following rules or instructions, performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 13-20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-9, 11, 21-22.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as entity analysis circuitry, a computer, application specific risk scoring circuitry, wherein the application specific risk scoring circuitry comprises a risk scoring model comprising a neural network; insight circuitry, entity policy identification circuitry, entity improvement circuitry, a graphical user interface (GUI), communications hardware, a user device, a computer program product, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-9, 11, 13-22 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 13, and 20, are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent
claims 2-9, 11, and 14-22 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 13, and 20.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Lu, (US 20190197442 A1), “Artificial Intelligence Based Risk and Knowledge Management,” and Joseph, (US-10860742-B2), “Privacy Risk Information Display.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches, A method for generating an insight report for an entity, (an artificial intelligence-based risk and knowledge management analysis are described, [Abstract]), the method comprising:
identifying, by entity analysis circuitry, an entity asset set for the entity, (a data analyzer may obtain entity data pertaining to an entity associated with a risk management instrument, [Abstract], wherein (i) the entity asset set comprises a plurality of entity assets associated with the entity, (ii) each entity asset is associated with an entity asset type, and (iii) each entity asset is further associated with a geographic area; (the entity may be, for instance, a property, such as a building and a house, a vehicle, such as a car, an appliance, such as a television, and the like [0017], the sensors 120 connects to a single or multiple entities 110 in one or multiple domains (for example, in different distances), while gathering information such as, geographical location, signal frequency, sensors attributes, and entity category, [0040],
training, by a computer and based on historical data, application specific risk scoring circuitry to detect patterns associated with contributing risk factors, wherein the application specific risk scoring circuitry comprises a risk scoring model comprising a neural network;
detecting, by the application specific risk scoring circuitry and based on a corresponding entity asset type and a corresponding geographic area, a contributing factor associated with a risk, wherein the risk comprises at least one of an operational risk, an environmental risk, a weather risk, a regulatory risk, a reputational risk, or a human rights risk;
None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Applicant' s combination of risk scoring model, based on asset type, geographic area, and contributing factors associated with described risks are not taught in prior art, the closest prior art being Lu, with variations of elements. These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights