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
The following is a Final Office action. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the terminal disclaimer filed on March 5, 2026, the double patenting rejection is hereby removed.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered. However, the 101 rejection remains.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (See Remarks at pg. 9). Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims recite “a specific graphical user interface architecture for interactive risk visualization,” such that claim 1 recites “a matrix visualization portion, a driver visualization portion, and a selection detail portion” (See Remarks at pg. 9). However, Examiner notes that these respective portions are sections of a user interface presentation where specific data is displayed, as shown in Fig. 4 and described in ¶0065-0069 of the Applicant’s Specification. A “matrix visualization portion, a driver visualization portion, and a selection detail portion” do not describe a specific graphical interface architecture. However, these portions are labeled display sections, where the matrix visualization portion displays a matrix with prioritization categories; a driver visualization portion presents a visualization of risk indicator contributions to scores; and a selection detail portion provides details based on what is selected by a user (See Specification ¶0066-0069). The specific graphical user interface, as claimed, merely presents gathered data. Courts have recognized that the "selection of information, based on types of information… for collection, analysis and display” are insignificant extra-solution activities (See 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the presentation of the risk assessment information in detailed portions of a display represent an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to Example 37 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (See Remarks at pg. 10). In response, however, the Examiner emphasizes that the claims in Example 37 recited additional elements where computerized icons are automatically manipulated in a ranked order on a graphical user interface according to a determination on how much memory has been allocated to an application associated with the icon, resulting in an improved graphical user interface. Applicant’s claims are distinguishable from the claims in Example 37, such that Applicant’s claims merely organize specific gathered data in visualization portions (See Applicant’s Fig. 4). While Applicant’s claims automatically update data in the visualization portions, the automatic updating is in response to a user selection. Therefore, the mere presentation of gathered data on a user interface, as recited in Applicant’s claims, does not result in an improved graphical user interface.
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the “Office Action has not provided any evidentiary support for the assertion that the specific interactive visualization claimed was well-understood, routing, or conventional at the relevant time” (See Remarks at pg. 11). Specifically, Applicant alleges that the “Office Action has not cited any documentary evidence establishing that an interactive visualization, with a matrix visualization portion, a driver visualization portion and a selection detail portion, wherein the driver visualization is automatically updated to remove risk indicator shapes not associated with a selected element and remaining risk indicator shapes are resized after the updating” (See Remarks at pg. 11).Examiner first notes the various portions of the interface are labeled sections where various data is displayed. As described in the argument above, Applicant’s Specification recites that the matrix visualization portion displays a matrix with prioritization categories; a driver visualization portion presents a visualization of risk indicator contributions to scores; and a selection detail portion provides details based on what is selected by a user (See Specification ¶0066-0069). Therefore, these portions are not specific to the interactive visualization, but to the specific risk data gathered for display. The specific interactive visualization that is automatically updated to remove risk indicator shapes not associated with a selected element and remaining risk indicator shapes resized after the updating is a matter of displaying and presenting data as it’s been gathered (via updating). In section 2B of the 101 rejection, Examiner provided evidentiary support by providing the citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).” The updated risk data is gathered and then transmitted to the interactive visualization for display providing an example of a computer receiving and sending information over a network. Accordingly, Examiner has appropriately determined that the argued additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/303,779 filed on 06/07/2024 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed method in claims 1-10; the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 8-14 and the claimed system in claims 15-20 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-20.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-20, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements
recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
segmenting a plurality of assets into a plurality of groups based on stored grouping criteria for non-controllable indicators and feature values of the non-controllable indicators;
computing a risk prioritization index for each asset in the plurality of assets based on controllable indicators of obtained feature values of the controllable indicators;
presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization includes: a matrix visualization portion including: a first axis based on the plurality of groups; and a second axis with range intervals based on a value range of the risk prioritization indexes; and at each intersection of a group of the plurality of groups and range interval of the second axis, a selectable element; a driver visualization portion including a plurality of risk indicator shapes, the plurality of risk indicator shapes corresponding to the controllable and non-controllable indicators; and a selection detail portion;
receiving a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion; (data gathering step) and
in response to the selection: retrieving a listing of assets in the plurality of assets within the group and range interval corresponding to the selected element; (data gathering step)
presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion; (data gathering step)
automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and
resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating.
Claim 8
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising:
segmenting a plurality of assets into a plurality of groups based on stored grouping criteria for non-controllable indicators and feature values of the non-controllable indicators;
computing a risk prioritization index for each asset in the plurality of assets based on controllable indicators of obtained feature values of the controllable indicators;
presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization includes: a matrix visualization portion including: a first axis based on the plurality of groups; and a second axis with range intervals based on a value range of the risk prioritization indexes; and at each intersection of a group of the plurality of groups and range interval of the second axis, a selectable element; a driver visualization portion including a plurality of risk indicator shapes, the plurality of risk indicator shapes corresponding to the controllable and non-controllable indicators; and a selection detail portion;
receiving a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion; (data gathering step) and
in response to the selection: retrieving a listing of assets in the plurality of assets within the group and range interval corresponding to the selected element; (data gathering step)
presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion; (data gathering step)
automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and
resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating.
Claim 15
A system comprising: a processing unit; and a storage device comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing unit, configure the processing unit to perform operations comprising:
segmenting a plurality of assets into a plurality of groups based on stored grouping criteria for non-controllable indicators and feature values of the non-controllable indicators;
computing a risk prioritization index for each asset in the plurality of assets based on controllable indicators of obtained feature values of the controllable indicators;
presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization includes: a matrix visualization portion including: a first axis based on the plurality of groups; and a second axis with range intervals based on a value range of the risk prioritization indexes; and at each intersection of a group of the plurality of groups and range interval of the second axis, a selectable element; a driver visualization portion including a plurality of risk indicator shapes, the plurality of risk indicator shapes corresponding to the controllable and non-controllable indicators; and a selection detail portion;
receiving a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion; (data gathering step) and
in response to the selection: retrieving a listing of assets in the plurality of assets within the group and range interval corresponding to the selected element; (data gathering step)
presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion; (data gathering step)
automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and
resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating.
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are mental processes (i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed
invention is directed to segmenting or organizing asset data according to observed grouping criteria. The organized asset data is then grouped on a graph with respect to user-selected display elements to describe the risk associated with the assets. Therefore, the asset data is observed and evaluated for risk indicators and adherence to grouping criteria, which is a mental process.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., “presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization includes: a matrix visualization portion including: a first axis based on the plurality of groups; and a second axis with range intervals based on a value range of the risk prioritization indexes; and at each intersection of a group of the plurality of groups and range interval of the second axis, a selectable element; a driver visualization portion including a plurality of risk indicator shapes, the plurality of risk indicator shapes corresponding to the controllable and non-controllable indicators; and a selection detail portion;” “receiving a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion; and “in response to the selection: retrieving a listing of assets in the plurality of assets within the group and range interval corresponding to the selected element;” “presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion;” etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g., segmenting a plurality of assets into a plurality of groups based on stored grouping criteria for non-controllable indicators and feature values of the non-controllable indicators; computing a risk prioritization index for each asset in the plurality of assets based on controllable indicators of obtained feature values of the controllable indicators; automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating; etc.); storing data; and displaying data (e.g., presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization; etc.). and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims. Further examiner notes that the additional elements, automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating describe user selected elements that are manipulated for display, which amount to mere data gathering and output. Courts have recognized that the "selection of information, based on types of information… for collection, analysis and display” are insignificant extra-solution activities (See 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, these additional elements of the claim are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for quantifying and visualizing risk) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0089-0092, “computer system 700, within which a set or sequence of instructions may be executed to cause the machine to perform any one of the methodologies discussed herein, according to an example embodiment. In alternative embodiments, the machine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g., networked) to other machines. In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of either a server or a client machine in server-client Network environments, or it may act as a peer machine in peer-to-peer (or distributed) Network environments. The machine may be an onboard vehicle system, wearable device, personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a hybrid tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. Further, while only a single machine is illustrated, the term “machine” shall also be taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein. Similarly, the term “processor-based system” shall be taken to include any set of one or more machines that are controlled by or operated by a processor (e.g., a computer) to individually or jointly execute instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein… while the machine-readable medium 724 is illustrated in an example embodiment to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” may include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed Database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store the one or more instructions 714. The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include any tangible medium that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying instructions for execution by the machine and that cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present disclosure or that is capable of storing, encoding or carrying data structures utilized by or associated with such instructions. As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives, sends and displays information over a network) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claimed automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating fails to transform the nature of a claim into a patent-eligible application that amounts to more than an insignificant extra-solution activity (See 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the data merely selected by the user is then manipulated for presentation and updating in a visualization, which describes the "selection of information, based on types of information… for collection, analysis and display” (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
Dependent claims 2-3 ,9-10 and 16-17 further narrow the evaluation of risk indicators in the described mental process above, such that risk indicators are scored and compared to a total score of the plurality of risk indicator shapes. The scores of the risk indicators are visually represented by risk indicator shapes. The visual representation of risk indicator scores with a risk indicator shape is an insignificant extra-solution activity, as it describes the "selection of information, based on types of information… for collection, analysis and display” (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and See 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 further narrow the display of the selectable elements and sections of the interactive matric visualization. These claims describe elements that are colored, shaded and organized into columns, which are mere descriptions of data manipulated for display. As aforementioned, the elements of these dependent claims describe an insignificant extra-solution activity (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and See 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 7 and 14 identify additional data gathering steps. The claims receive data that is evaluated by segmentation and then filtered into a “selection detail portion” of the display. The evaluation performed by way of segmentation and filtering further narrows the aforementioned mental process.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea, they do not
practically apply the abstract idea or provide ‘something more.’
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. The most closely applicable prior art of record is Girdhar et al. (US Patent Application Publication, 2021/0089978, hereinafter referred to as Girdhar). Girdhar discloses a method and system for providing interfaces for data-driven risk assessments of software application components. While Girdhar is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Specifically, Girdhar and the other cited references, fail to disclose the bolded independent claim limitations: segmenting a plurality of assets into a plurality of groups based on stored grouping criteria for non-controllable indicators and feature values of the non-controllable indicators; computing a risk prioritization index for each asset in the plurality of assets based on controllable indicators of obtained feature values of the controllable indicators; presenting an interactive visualization of the computed risk prioritization indexes, wherein the interactive visualization includes: a matrix visualization portion including: a first axis based on the plurality of groups; and a second axis with range intervals based on a value range of the risk prioritization indexes; and at each intersection of a group of the plurality of groups and range interval of the second axis, a selectable element; a driver visualization portion including a plurality of risk indicator shapes, the plurality of risk indicator shapes corresponding to the controllable and non-controllable indicators; and a selection detail portion; receiving a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion; and in response to the selection: retrieving a listing of assets in the plurality of assets within the group and range interval corresponding to the selected element; presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion; automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element; and resizing remaining risk indicator shapes in the plurality of risk indicator shapes after the updating, thus rendering independent claims 1, 8 and 15 as allowable over the prior art. The specific ordered combination of the claim elements in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 cannot be found in the prior art and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification. Any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girdhar et al. (US 2021/0089978): A method and system for providing interfaces for data-driven risk assessments of software application components.
Mun (US 2014/0200953): The present invention is applicable in the field of corporate finance, corporate capital investments, economics, math, business risk analysis, simulation, decision analysis, qualitative risk analysis, risk management, quantitative risk analysis, and business statistics, and relates to the modeling and valuation of investment decisions under uncertainty and risk within all companies, allowing these firms to properly identify, assess, quantify, value, diversify, and hedge their corporate capital investment decisions and their associated risks. Specifically, the present invention looks at starting from a comprehensive qualitative risk register and moving the analysis into the realms of quantitative risk modeling, simulation, and optimization.
Donegan et al. (US 2021/0182133): A risk management system includes a plurality of sensors coupled to a processor and to an electrical device, which may be a utility asset, to monitor operational characteristics of the electrical device. The processor may send sensor data and/or processed information to a memory for storage. The processed information, the sensor data, or both are visually and graphically presented in a radar chart, a table, and a sliding scale interface for both selecting data and interpreting data provided by the processor. The combination of the radar chart, the table, and the sliding scale interface allows a user of any level of training or education to quickly and efficiently interpret the sensor data, the processed information, or both with respect to the electrical device. The radar chart depicts a failure profile that provides a visual summary of determined risk scores corresponding to subcomponents of the electrical device that may need investigation, maintenance, or replacement.
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 ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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 5712705389. 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.
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights