DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments /Remarks filed on 12/08/2025.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1-4 have been amended; and claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claims 1-5 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
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
Applicant’s arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 12/08/2025, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments: “(a) neither reference teaches or suggests iteratively performing simulation steps "in a closed-loop iterative process until a pre-defined optimization goal for a scenario outcome is achieved," as claimed; (b) the references fail to teach or suggest sending the updated set of parameters to a distributed computational graph" for use in managing a real-time process"; and (c) there is no motivation to combine a geological hazard assessment system with data transformation operations to achieve the claimed real-time process management system.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Watts does disclose ‘in a closed-loop iterative process until a pre-defined optimization goal for a scenario outcome is achieved,’ (Watt: abstract, paras. 0057-0068, running/processing different kind of models/parameters to obtain a result/outcome and claim 1).
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants. The Examiner respectfully submits that Stojanovic does disclose ‘sending the updated set of parameters to a distributed computational graph" for use in managing a real-time process’ (Stojanovic: para. 0100 and figs. 1, 4A-D, a transform script may be defined using a syntax that describes operations with respect to one or more algorithms (e.g. Spark Operator Trees)).
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants ‘there is no motivation to combine a geological hazard assessment system with data transformation operations to achieve the claimed real-time process management system.”’. The 103 rejections really combine the teaching of Watts and Stojanovic in the motivational paragraph, see section in the 103.
Examiner, however, in light of the above submission maintains the previous rejections while considering the amendments to the claims as follows:
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts, Pub. No.: US 2008/0027690 in view of Stojanovic et. al., (hereinafter Stojanovic), Pub. No.: US 2016/0092557.
Referring to claim 1, Watts teaches a system for epistemic uncertainty reduction using simulations, models and data exchange, comprising (abstract, para. 0041):
a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface;
wherein a plurality of programming instructions stored in one or more of the memories and operating on one or more of the processors of the plurality of computing devices causes the plurality of computing devices to (para. 0041, 0053, assessment system):
receive a plurality of initial conditions from external data sources (paras. 0012, 0021, 0051 and 0062, criteria (including initial condition….); see also para. 0077);
perform a comparison by comparing at least a portion of the plurality of initial conditions against a plurality of configuration rules (para. 0012, comparing; paras. 0064-0068, comparing and verifying);
define a scenario model using a model definition language based the plurality of initial conditions and the comparison (paras. 0050-0053, given a scenario….);
perform the following steps in close-loop iterative process until a pre-defined optimization goal for a scenario outcome is achieved (abstract, paras. 0051, 0057-0068 and claim 1, processes the models/parameters to obtain the result):
perform a simulation using the scenario model (paras. 0057-0060);
produce a scenario outcome based on results of the simulation; and in response to the scenario outcome, automatically modify a plurality of parameters of the scenario model based on the scenario outcome to generate an updated set of parameters for a subsequent simulation (paras. 0057-0067-0068, a result of the HAM run of a given scenario; see also paras. 0050-0053).
Watts does not explicitly disclose upon achievement of the optimization goal, send the updated set of the plurality of parameters to a distributed computational graph for use in managing a real-time process.
However, in an analogous art, Stojanovic teaches upon achievement of the optimization goal, send the updated set of the plurality of parameters to a distributed computational graph for use in managing a real-time process (paras. 0100-0101 and figs. 1, 4A-D, a transform script may be defined using a syntax that describes operations with respect to one or more algorithms (e.g. Spark Operator Trees)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Watts with the method and system of Stojanovic, wherein upon achievement of the optimization goal, send the updated set of the plurality of parameters to a distributed computational graph for use in managing a real-time process to provide a user with a means for performing similarity metric analysis and data enrichment using knowledge sources (Stojanovic: paras. 0011-0015).
Referring to claim 2, Watts and Stojanovic teach the system of claim 1. Stojanovic further teaches wherein at least some of the pluralities of initial conditions are received from the distributed computational graph and are based on previously provided parameters that have been processed by the distributed computational graph (paras. 098-0101 and figs. 1, 4A-D, a transform script may perform an operation data. In some embodiment, a transform script may implement a linear transformation of data. A linear transformation may be implemented through use of an API (e.g., Spark API)).
Referring to claim 3, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 4, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Referring to claim 5, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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.
/YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 01/30/2026