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 Claims
Claims 1-12 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5, and 8-9 were amended in the reply filed January 2, 2026. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments obviate the claim interpretation made under § 112(f) and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejections made under §§ 112(a) and 112(b) and they are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant high lights several limitations and argues that they "act to automate the technical function of simulating the impact of an adverse event in a simulator upon the assets of an organization in order to produce a loss estimate in an unconventional way since conventionally, the determination of impact of an adverse event is a one-to-one determination of event to asset without regard to the severity of the event or the resilience (susceptibility of the assets impacted by the event)." Remarks, 21-22. However, aside from the general linkage of the abstract idea to a technological environment in which to execute it (i.s., repository, simulator), all of these limitations and Applicant's description of the conventional way of doing things describe abstract enterprise risk analysis. "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
"Instead, Applicants' specification refers to a specific process of automating the simulation not known in the prior art and thus not of conventional origin." Remarks, 23. "[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover, "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-4 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 5-8 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 9-12 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 5, and 9, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of estimating the potential losses and corresponding recovery caused by adverse events, which is a mathematical concept and a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting the computing averages for susceptibility values, computing average recovery times, and applying rules to those susceptibility and recovery times. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting assessing infrastructure risk to adverse events and determining a loss estimate. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The mathematical concept and method of organizing human activity of “estimating the potential losses and corresponding recovery caused by adverse events,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: querying adverse events, retrieving infrastructure objects, testing average susceptibility values to adverse events for infrastructure objects by Monte Carlo processing, computing average recover time for infrastructure objects by Monte Carlo processing, and applying loss value rules. The mere nominal recitation of a simulator, a memory, a communications network, a scenario repository, a computer, a processing unit, a display, persistent storage, and a non-transitory computer readable medium does not take the claim of the mathematical concept or method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 4, 8, and 12, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: mapping operability levels to recovery times, determining minimum operability, and correlating minimum operability to recovery times.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 5, and 9 recite the additional elements: a simulator, a memory, a communications network, a scenario repository, a computer, a processing unit, a display, persistent storage, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These memory, communications network, scenario repository, computer, processing unit, display, persistent storage, and non-transitory computer readable medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The simulator step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of simulating data), and amounts to an insignificant application, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The infrastructure elements limit the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the infrastructure field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any 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. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of infrastructure risk management in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing risk management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 5, and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a memory, a communications network, a computer, a processing unit, a display, persistent storage, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), storing and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a simulator (Specification [0027]), a memory (Specification [0037]), a communications network (Specification [0025], [0038]), a scenario repository (Specification [0026]), a computer (Specification [0028]), a processing unit (Specification [0037]), a display (Specification [0011]), persistent storage (Specification [0038]), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Specification [0037]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a simulator, a memory, a communications network, a scenario repository, a computer, a processing unit, a display, persistent storage, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering or an insignificant application) by reciting a simulator and establishing a communication linkage. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting infrastructure. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10-11, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0200531 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250926) in view of Matsumoto, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0398087 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
Claim 1.
Hirano discloses a simulation method for business continuity comprising:
executing a simulator in memory of a host data processing system (Hirano [0045], [0046] program for implementing the functions of the main storage apparatus including the load distribution estimation unit 102, a failure probability estimation unit 103, a risk and cost calculation unit 104, a failure probability simulation unit 105, and a result output unit 106; [0048] processing unit);
establishing a communicative linkage over a computer communications network between the simulator and a scenario repository storing therein different infrastructure element objects for a target environment, each of the objects encapsulating different data members including both susceptibility values for different adverse events for different degrees of severity of respective ones of the different adverse events, and also recovery times for the different adverse events for the different degrees of severity of the respective ones of the different adverse events (Hirano [0050], [0052] communication unit; [0047] Various pieces of information (travel plan information 107, equipment-related information 108, inspection plan information 109, lineside information 110, and risk and cost output information 111) to be used in the present embodiment are stored in the auxiliary storage apparatus; [0066] equipment related information includes equipment unit price, unplanned preservation unit price, risk influence degree, and failure probability function; [0068] unplanned preservation unit price indicates an expense caused upon occurrence; [0069] risk influence degree indicates a weight of the degree of influence of an equipment failure; [0070] failure probability distribution function; [0072] load items; [0127] average recovery time);
querying the scenario repository for a specific one of the adverse events and in response to the querying, retrieving into the simulator a selection of the infrastructure element objects that are associated with the specific one of the adverse events (Hirano [0077] load distribution function; [0090] failure probability estimation unit first calculates accumulated load amount; [0094] failure probability estimation unit then calculates a single-equipment failure probability);
first executing a scenario test of the selection of the infrastructure element objects across a range of the susceptibility values by computing an average of the susceptibility values for each of the selection of the infrastructure element objects for randomly selected ones of the different degrees of severity of the specific one of the adverse events (Hirano [0147], [0154], [0187], [0223] failure probability simulation unit 105 calculates equipment failure probability);
second executing a recovery simulation of the infrastructure element objects across a range of recovery times for each of the infrastructure element objects by computing an average recovery time for each of the infrastructure element objects amongst the range of the recovery times (Hirano [0116] cumulative transport disorder risk is obtained by the risk and cost calculation unit 104; [0121] time of recovery; [0127] average recovery time); and
applying one or more loss value rules to the scenario tested and recovery simulated infrastructure element objects to produce a loss estimate for the target environment (Hirano [0049], [0056], [0158], [0204], [0238], [0240] The output unit 117 makes a comparison between the case where equipment maintenance is conducted as scheduled on the basis determined (with the details defined by maintenance performance) and the case where the details of equipment maintenance are changed and displays the risks and the cost).
Hirano does not explicitly teach the testing and simulating include submitting the selection of the infrastructure element objects to Monte Carlo processing; which is taught by Matsumoto (¶¶ 0037, 39, 87, 90). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Matsumoto—namely, in order to better model failures, severity, and recovery time. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of enterprise risk analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 2.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Hirano discloses:
wherein the infrastructure element objects additionally each store a reference to a prophylactic measure adapted to mitigate the susceptibility values if implemented, and a cost to implement the prophylactic measure, wherein the one or more loss value rules computes a comparison of the loss estimate with and without implementing the prophylactic measure (Hirano [0116], [0131], [0132] maintenance cost; [0132], [0140] replacement cost; [0133] unplanned preservation cost indicates an expected value of an additional cost incurred when unplanned repair (i.e. “unplanned preservation”) occurs due to an equipment failure; [0166], [0169], [0172], [0174] reduction in transport disorder risk).
Claim 3.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Hirano discloses:
wherein the infrastructure element objects additionally each store a data structure of recovery costs each of the costs mapped to a corresponding one of the recovery times in the range, wherein the one or more loss value rules computes the loss estimate accounting as a function of the recovery costs in the data structure (Hirano [0116] cumulative transport disorder risk is obtained by the risk and cost calculation unit 104 wherein the transport disorder risk indicates the expected value of the economic loss; [0116], [0131], [0132] maintenance cost; [0121] time of recovery; [0127] average recovery time; [0132], [0140] replacement cost; [0133] unplanned preservation cost indicates an expected value of an additional cost incurred when unplanned repair (i.e. “unplanned preservation”) occurs due to an equipment failure; [0224] reduced service availability).
Claim 4.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Hirano discloses:
wherein the infrastructure element objects additionally each store a data structure of operability levels, each of the levels mapped to a corresponding one of the recovery times in the range, the method further comprising determining for each corresponding one of the infrastructure element objects a minimum level of operability required for the target environment and correlating the determined minimum level of operability to one of the recovery times in the range for the corresponding one of the infrastructure element objects (Hirano [0077] load distribution function; [0090] failure probability estimation unit first calculates accumulated load amount; [0094] failure probability estimation unit then calculates a single-equipment failure probability; [0121] time of recovery; [0127] average recovery time; [0132], [0140] replacement cost; [0133] unplanned preservation cost indicates an expected value of an additional cost incurred when unplanned repair (i.e. “unplanned preservation”) occurs due to an equipment failure).
Claim 5.
Hirano discloses a data processing system adapted for business continuity simulation, the system comprising:
a host computing platform comprising one or more computers, each with memory and one or more processing units including one or more processing cores (Hirano [0043] computer apparatus);
a display (Hirano [0049] display apparatus);
a simulator computer program executing in the memory of the host computing platform by the one or more processing units of the host computing platform (Hirano [0046] program for implementing functions);
persistent storage coupled to the host computing platform, the persistent storage storing therein a scenario repository of different infrastructure element objects for a target environment, each of the objects encapsulating data members including both susceptibility values for different adverse events for different degrees of severity of respective ones of the different adverse events and also recovery times for the different adverse events for the different degrees of severity of the respective ones of the different adverse events (Hirano [0047] Various pieces of information (travel plan information 107, equipment-related information 108, inspection plan information 109, lineside information 110, and risk and cost output information 111) to be used in the present embodiment are stored in the auxiliary storage apparatus; [0066] equipment related information includes equipment unit price, unplanned preservation unit price, risk influence degree, and failure probability function; [0068] unplanned preservation unit price indicates an expense caused upon occurrence; [0069] risk influence degree indicates a weight of the degree of influence of an equipment failure; [0070] failure probability distribution function; [0072] load items; [0127] average recovery time); and
a business continuity simulation module included as part of the simulator computer program (Hirano [0045], [0046] program for implementing the functions of the main storage apparatus including the load distribution estimation unit 102, a failure probability estimation unit 103, a risk and cost calculation unit 104, a failure probability simulation unit 105, and a result output unit 106), the module comprising computer program instructions enabled while executing in the memory of at least one of the processing units of the host computing platform to perform:
establishing a communicatively linkage between the simulator and the scenario repository (Hirano [0050], [0052] communication unit);
querying the scenario repository for a specific one of the adverse events and retrieving into the simulator in response to the querying, a selection of the infrastructure element objects that are associated with the specific one of the adverse events (Hirano [0077] load distribution function; [0090] failure probability estimation unit first calculates accumulated load amount; [0094] failure probability estimation unit then calculates a single-equipment failure probability);
first executing a scenario test of the selection of the infrastructure element objects across a range of the susceptibility values by computing an average of the susceptibility values for each of the selection of the infrastructure element objects for randomly selected ones of the different degrees of severity of the specific one of the adverse events (Hirano [0147], [0154], [0187], [0223] failure probability simulation unit 105 calculates equipment failure probability);
second executing a recovery simulation of the infrastructure element objects across a range of recovery times for each of the infrastructure element objects by computing an average recovery time for each of the infrastructure element objects amongst the range of the recovery times (Hirano [0116] cumulative transport disorder risk is obtained by the risk and cost calculation unit 104; [0121] time of recovery; [0127] average recovery time);
applying one or more loss value rules to the scenario tested and recovery simulated infrastructure element objects to produce a loss estimate for the target environment (Hirano [0049], [0056], [0158], [0204], [0238], [0240] The output unit 117 makes a comparison between the case where equipment maintenance is conducted as scheduled on the basis determined (with the details defined by maintenance performance) and the case where the details of equipment maintenance are changed and displays the risks and the cost); and,
displaying the loss estimate in the simulator onto the display of the host computing platform (Hirano [0049], [0056], [0158], [0204], [0238], [0240] The output unit 117 makes a comparison between the case where equipment maintenance is conducted as scheduled on the basis determined (with the details defined by maintenance performance) and the case where the details of equipment maintenance are changed and displays the risks and the cost).
Hirano does not explicitly teach the testing and simulating include submitting the selection of the infrastructure element objects to Monte Carlo processing; which is taught by Matsumoto (¶¶ 0037, 39, 87, 90). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Matsumoto—namely, in order to better model failures, severity, and recovery time. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of enterprise risk analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 6.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 6 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 7.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 7 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 8.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 8 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 9.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses a computing device comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions stored therein, the instructions being executable by at least one processing core of a processing unit to cause the processing unit to perform a method for business continuity simulation by:
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the remaining elements of claim 9 as shown above in claims 1 and 5 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claim 10.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 10 as shown above in claim 2.
Claim 11.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 11 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 12.
Hirano in view of Matsumoto discloses all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aslam, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0263843 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to an operational resilience scenario.
Walker, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0295226 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to an operational resilience scenario.
Deleris, et al., Risk management in supply networks using Monte-Carlo simulation, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, 2005 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to an operational resilience scenario.
Peters, et al., Bayesian Inference, Monte Carlo Sampling and Operational Risk, Journal of Operational Risk, Vol 1, No. 3, 2006 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to an operational resilience scenario.
Burtescu, Decision assistance in risk assessment-monte carlo simulations, Informatica Economica, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2012 (Reference W of the attached PTO-892) relates to an operational resilience scenario.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights