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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 2 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 3-11 13-20 have been rejected.
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims describe a method apparatus, system, and computer-readable medium storing processor executable, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claims 1,11, 20
The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making evaluations of the obtained data based on math, determine values like score, ranking, and probability using mathematical either calculation or function, thereby describing an observation and evaluation of data and reporting the observation, and finally taking an action of remediation based on the reporting and the math calculation including probability calculation and mode failure scoring. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 further process the obtained data by further detailing the gathering of data in either a mathematical relationships way, mathematical formulas or equation way, and mathematical calculation way, and further details also the reporting. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mathematical concepts and or mathematical calculation using equations directed to performing the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. Dependent claims limitations describe performing various types data failure mode gathering and analysis for remediation, based on mathematical calculations/relations as ways for implementing the identified mental process in independent claims.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, dependent claims each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Independent Claims indicate the method is stored in a computer readable medium storing processor executable instruction, and a system comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program executes steps of the method according to independent claims being implemented when the computer program is executed by the processor.
Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component like communication interface is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor/communication interface cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The independent claims as mentioned above obtain data, subject the obtained data to calculation, and then make an evaluation based on the calculation and report to remediate based on the evaluation made based on math, math calculation, and mathematical concept to assess risk of models.
These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, processing of calculation by submitting the results of the calculation, and generically applying an evaluation based on the math, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The claims recite different mathematical relations and equation concepts, that can be performed by a human and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception.
There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using mathematical relation/equation/calculation in its ordinary capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
The dependent claims, further detail the data gathering and the math as applied to the obtained data. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, independent claims contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The additional elements in the independent claims do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to obtaining, determining, and generically applying an evaluation and remediation to a generically identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The dependent claims have no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing mathematical concepts/ calculation/ relation in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception and do not represent” significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Arguments and remarks submitted to the Office on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regard the argument which states;
“
PNG
media_image1.png
285
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim is nothing but a mental step of planning and forming an opinion regarding potential failure modes in enterprise software systems. This includes receiving and evaluating event/condition data, generating an FMEA artifact, determining dependencies, identifying associated failure modes, and selecting a specific failure mode for further analysis. These steps involve evaluation, judgment and opinion forming that is performed mentally.
The limitation of “executing at the FMEA processing system, a failure mode simulation to test the selected failure mode” rises to nothing more than generic computer implementation of that mental analysis; no specific technical algorithm, model, or unconventional simulation process is recited. The steps of determining impact, probability, detectability scores, calculating risk priority number which is a mathematical concept, and ranking sorting failures modes for different organizational subsets are likewise mental processes or mathematical relationships performed by generic computer components.
The automatic generation of reports and execution of remedial instructions represents only generic computer use that applies the abstract idea in a conventional technological environment, without altering its fundamental character. The argument is not correct. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE RIAD whose telephone number is (571)272-8185.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bonzo Bryce can be reached 571-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R./
/Amine Riad/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights