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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/3/2026 has been entered.
The claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 remain canceled. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
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 pgs. 8-9). 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” that receives “a selection of a selectable element in the matrix visualization portion and in response to the selection: (1) retrieving a listing of assets, (2) presenting the listing of assets in the selection detail portion, (3) automatically updating the driver visualization to remove risk indicator shapes that are not associated with the selected element, and (4) resizing remaining risk indicator shapes” (See Remarks at pgs. 8-9). 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 and data that is manipulated in response to selection and/or analysis. Applicant asserts that the amended claim limitation, “wherein a first shape of the plurality of risk indicator shapes is sized proportionally according to a score of a risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of all of the plurality of risk indicator shapes,” is not gathered data, but rather a specific manner of presenting risk data through an interactive visualization (See Remarks at pg. 9). Examiner notes that the risk indicator shapes are merely symbolic data embodying a score. The score is an analysis of risk and therefore, the shapes “of the plurality of risk indicator shapes is sized proportionally according to a score of a risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of all of the plurality of risk indicator shapes” are merely a display of an analysis. 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 represents 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. Applicant asserts that the “selection-driven updating is what makes the claimed interactive visualization interactive” and it is what makes the claims analogous to the improved graphical user interface of Example 37 (See Remarks at pg. 10). Examiner notes that the improved interface in Example 37 is a specific improvement over prior systems based on the automatic display of icons based on the determination of memory allocated to an application and not merely in response to the user selection to organize the icons. Examiner notes that merely selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated is an insignificant extra-solution activity (See 2106.05(g); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the mere presentation of gathered and selected 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 “claims recite significantly more under step 2B” because “evidence directed to receiving and transmitting data over a network and to the generic computer hardware on which the claimed visualization may run” (See Remarks at pgs. 10-11). Specifically, Applicant alleges that the “claimed interactive visualization, including the sized proportionally and resizing remaining risk indicator shapes” limitations are not established to be well-understood, routine, or conventional (See Remarks at pg. 11). Examiner first notes that Section 2B evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation reciting a risk score being represented proportionally by a risk indicator shape recites an evaluation of risk data, such that it amounts to a mental process. Merely replacing a score with shapes sized to symbolize the score is an insignificant extra-solution activity, whereas the evaluated risk data is manipulated for display. See 101 analysis, step 2A, prong 2. The specific interactive visualization that is automatically updated to remove risk indicator shapes not associated with a selected element and the 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, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 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 and 4-7; the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 8 and 11-14 and the claimed system in claims 15 and 18-20 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, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20, 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, wherein a first shape of the plurality of risk indicator shapes is sized proportionally according to a score of a risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of all of the plurality of risk indicator shapes; 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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes.
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 wherein a first shape of the plurality of risk indicator shapes is sized proportionally according to a score of a risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of all of the plurality of risk indicator shapes; 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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes.
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 wherein a first shape of the plurality of risk indicator shapes is sized proportionally according to a score of a risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of all of the plurality of risk indicator shapes; 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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes.
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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes; 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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes describe user selected elements that are manipulated for display, which amount to mere data gathering and output. Specifically, the evaluated risk scores represented by risk indicator shapes are manipulated to a size, in response to updated risk data (i.e. data gathering). 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 bold 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, including increasing the size of the first shape based on a score of the risk indicator represented by the first shape compared to a total score of the remaining risk indicator shapes 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 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 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea, they do not
practically apply the abstract idea or provide ‘something more.’
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Futty (US 2016/0065608): A system comprising an interface and a memory communicatively coupled to a processor retrieves access information corresponding to an asset. The system stores one or more risk categories and one or more risk factors. The system determines the one or more risk categories corresponding to the access information and determines the one or more risk factors corresponding to the one or more risk categories. Based at least in part upon the one or more risk factors, the system calculates an access risk score for the asset. The system generates data visualization corresponding to the access risk score and the asset.
Merk (US 2025/0225464): The present disclosure relates to systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media for generating multidimensional risk visualizations depicting severity and frequency and for predicting risk mitigation strategies. For example, the disclosed systems generate multidimensional risk visualizations that present visual representations of risk severity and risk frequency in multidimensional formats, including many risk dimensions at once. In certain cases, the disclosed systems further utilize a particular machine learning model such as a strategy prediction neural network to generate predicted mitigation strategies based on risk data.
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