DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 12/4/2025 filling of Application 18/569,664.
Claims 1-10 were previously examiner in the action mailed on 10/1/2025. Claims 1, 2, 8-10 have been amended. Claims 7 has been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-10 have been amended.
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
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/4/2025 with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant argues “The improvement is a technical solution to a technical problem, as explained in the specification. For example, various factors affect risks a facility has, including respective properties of many apparatuses included in the facility and a degree of aging of each apparatus caused by external factors in an environment in which the facility is installed. See para. [0005]. Conventional systems, such as those in Patent Literature 1, estimate a risk value using a risk model. However, the method described in Patent Literature 1 does not evaluate a spontaneous risk and do not optimize countermeasures based on risk values of the constituent elements of the facility. The optimization system 1 is thus able to properly evaluate a risk and plan an appropriate countermeasure for the management target including the constituent elements. See para. [0035]. That is, the presently claimed invention sets forth a computer-implemented specific technical processes under technically relevant conditions.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of selecting a risk model corresponding to a risk type of each of the constituent elements, from the risk models and giving result information to the selected risk model to estimate a future risk value of each of the constituent elements; determining an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold, and record the countermeasure as schedule information cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and are also directed to methods of organizing human activity. Limitations that fall into the abstract ide groupings cannot also provide a technical improvement.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant further argues “The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites "determine an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, [and] for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold."”
The Exmeirn maintains that a human can “determine an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, [and] for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold”.
Further, “determining an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, [and] for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold” is directed to risk mitigation which is an abstract method of organizing human activity.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant further argues “For example, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the features of the claims (e.g., the combination of features of the claims is non-conventional and non-generic). See BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Ancora Techs. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (determining that the claims at issue, relating to improving security against a computer's unauthorized use of a program, were directed to an improvement in computer functionality due to the claims having "the specificity required to transform [the] claim[s] from...claiming only a result to...claiming a way of achieving it" under Step 2A, but also acknowledging that such a technical improvement can establish eligibility under Step 2B in view of BASCOM). In BASCOM, the court indicated that, when looking at the claim as an ordered combination of claim limitations, "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Similar to the concepts discussed in BASCOM, Applicant's claim 1 includes additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In step 2B, the examiner must be determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). In the instant case, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the generically claim processor to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the storing the recited information in memory amounts to insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Viewing the generic computer in combination with the broadly recited data storage does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-6, 8-9 are directed toward a system for risk management. Claim 10 is directed toward a method for risk mitigation. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of risk management which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A risk management system that assists in risk management of a management target including a plurality of constituent elements, the risk management system comprising:
select a risk model corresponding to a risk type of each of the constituent elements, from the risk models and giving result information to the selected risk model to estimate a future risk value of each of the constituent elements;
determine an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit,
for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold, and
record the countermeasure as schedule information.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of selecting a risk model corresponding to a risk type of each of the constituent elements, from the risk models and giving result information to the selected risk model to estimate a future risk value of each of the constituent elements; determining an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold, and record the countermeasure as schedule information are directed to determining and mitigating business risk which is a fundamental economic principle or practice.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant case, the limitations of selecting a risk model corresponding to a risk type of each of the constituent elements, from the risk models and giving result information to the selected risk model to estimate a future risk value of each of the constituent elements; determining an implementation time to apply the countermeasure, based on a risk value of each of the constituent elements, the risk value being estimated by the risk estimation unit, for every one of the constituent elements included in the management target at each point of time, upon determining a risk value is greater than or equal to the recovery threshold and upon determining the risk value is greater than or equal to the preventive threshold, determine a countermeasure to keep the risk value equal to or lower than the recovery threshold and the preventive threshold, and record the countermeasure as schedule information cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Under step 2A prong 2 the Examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A risk management system that assists in risk management of a management target including a plurality of constituent elements, the risk management system comprising:
a processor; and
and a memory, coupled to the processor, storing instructions that when executed by the processor, configures the processor to:
store countermeasure information indicating a relationship between each of a plurality of risk types and a countermeasure against each risk type, and risk models for estimating a risk value at each point of time in future, the risk models corresponding respectively to the plurality of risk types,
store risk structure information including a countermeasure for the management target, based on a structural relationship between the management target and the constituent elements, a recovery threshold for determining whether to execute a recovery measure and a preventive threshold for determining whether to execute a preventive measure,
However, the computer elements (a processor; and a memory, coupled to the processor, storing instructions that when executed by the processor) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the storing the recited information in memory amounts to insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the generic computer in combination with the broadly recited data storage does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the processor in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the storage of information is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Storing and retrieving information in memory” is conventional when claimed generically (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;)
Viewing the generic computer in combination with the broadly recited data storage does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not provide an inventive concept.
Further Claims 2-6, 8-9 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally and methods of organizing human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-6, 8-9 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, Claims 10 is rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon in a Rejection
Two‐threshold control limit policy in condition‐based maintenance - In this paper, we consider a component exhibiting a continuous monotone degradation modeled as a Gamma process. The maintenance policy is of condition‐based type with periodic inspections. It follows the two threshold control limit policy with a preventive maintenance limit, a switching limit, and a given failure limit. Our interest is to minimize the annual expected maintenance cost subject to a constraint on the average availability. The decision variables are the preventive limit, the switching limit, and the inspections schedule. We derive exact results for the key performance indicators, but since they are numerically involved, we propose a simple, that is, involving necessary spreadsheet calculations, accurate approximation. We apply our model to a case from the process industry, namely, a carbon steel hydrogen dryer consisting of a cylindrical pressure vessel. This vessel suffers from corrosion with thickness growth modeled as a Gamma process. The optimization results show that although the annual maintenance cost increases with the mean and the coefficient of variation of the yearly corrosion thickness, its mean has a higher impact on cost. Based on the cost sensitivity analysis, we find that the impact of a vast increase of the corrective maintenance cost for the same inspection and preventive costs can be mitigated by appropriately reducing the corrective maintenance probability. Finally, we empirically show that the two threshold policy achieves an annual cost savings up to 12.3%12.3% compared to the single threshold policy.
Conclusion
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625