DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed February 11, 2026. Claims 1–12 are amended, and claims 13–14 are newly added. Currently, claims 1–14 are pending.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claims 5, 7, and 11 for informalities. Accordingly, the previous objection to claims 5, 7, and 11 is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new objection for informalities, and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
Applicant’s Response is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Response necessitates a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Examiner directs Applicant to the relevant explanation below.
With respect to the previous rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection asserted below.
When considered in combination with the remaining claim elements, the prior art of record, either taken alone or in any combination, does not expressly disclose the combination of elements for “prioritizing … the retrieved risk factors across a plurality of dimensions, the prioritizing comprising, for each of the plurality of dimensions: converting … identifying … and removing,” as substantially recited in claims 1 and 7. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 recite “detecting a cycle” and subsequently recite “removing … within the detected cycle”. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite “removing … within the
Claim 14 similarly recites “the detected cycle” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite a step for “retrieving … risk factors.” However, the claims subsequently recite “the retrieved risk factors” in the step for “prioritizing” (claims 1 and 7), “the prioritized risk factors” in the step for “consolidating” (claims 1 and 7), and “the consolidated and prioritized risk factors” in the step for “displaying” (claim 1). Examiner submits that the inconsistent recitations render the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each recitation to reference the other recitations or intends to introduce distinct risk factor sets.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as reciting “the
In view of the above, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–6 and 8–14, which depend from claims 1 and 7, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–14 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 8 similarly recite “the consolidated and prioritized risk factors” in the step for “determining”. Examiner submits that the recited element is indefinite for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 7.
For purposes of examination, claims 2 and 8 are interpreted as reciting “the
Claims 4 and 10 recite “assigning one or more of the action groups … based on the action groups assigned”. However, claims 3 and 9, from which claims 4 and 10 depend, previously recite “assigning one or more action groups … wherein each of the one or more action groups defines”. Examiner submits that the inconsistent recitations render the scope of the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for each recitation to reference the other recitations or intends to introduce distinct action groups.
For purposes of examination, claims 4 and 10 are interpreted as reciting “assigning the one or more one or more action groups assigned”.
Claim 13 recites “the cycle detection and conflict resolution” in line 1. Although claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, previously recites “detecting a cycle,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cycle detection” in claim 13.
Claim 13 further recites the term “consistent” in line 2. The term “consistent” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “consistent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as reciting “repeating the detecting and the removing .”
Claim 14 recites “the least directed edge” in lines 2–3. Although claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, previously recites “at least one directed edge,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the least directed edge” in claim 14.
For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as reciting “the at least one directed edge” in lines 2–3.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–14 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “retrieving risk factors relevant to a user”; “prioritizing the retrieved risk factors across a plurality of dimensions, the prioritizing comprising, for each of the plurality of dimensions: converting a plurality of order instructions into a graph by representing the risk factors as nodes and representing the order instructions as directed edges connecting the nodes, wherein each of the order instructions defines a relative ordering relationship between at least two of the risk factors”; “identifying conflicting order instructions by detecting a cycle in the graph that comprises a sequence of nodes and directed edges that begins and ends at a common node”; “removing at least one directed edge within the detected cycle to resolve the conflicting order instructions”; “consolidating the prioritized risk factors across the plurality of dimensions”; and “displaying a subset of the consolidated and prioritized risk factors.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and/or fundamental economic principles or practices related to mitigating risk because the elements describe a process for evaluating and visualizing risk factors relevant to a user. Further, the identified elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–6 and 8–14 further describe the process for evaluating and visualizing risk factors relevant to a user and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–14 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a data processing component, a data storage component, and a user-interactive display. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a user interface, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 7 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–6 and 8–14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–14 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–14 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a data processing component, a data storage component, and a user-interactive display. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 7 includes substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 7 further includes a user interface, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 7 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–6 and 8–14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–6 and 8–14 depend. As a result, claims 2–6 and 8–14 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DEMBO et al. (U.S. 2024/0104401) discloses a system directed to modeling risk factors as nodes on a graph;
Ying et al. (U.S. 2022/0217054) discloses a system directed to analyzing directed graphs to identify directed cycles and address the cycles by removing edges; and
Lazzerini et al. (Lazzerini, Beatrice, and Lusine Mkrtchyan. "Analyzing risk impact factors using extended fuzzy cognitive maps." IEEE Systems Journal 5.2 (2011): 288-297.) discloses a system directed to analyzing relationships between risk factors by mapping the risk factors.
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 WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights