DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 6/5/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 15, and 19 have been amended and claims 2, 11, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of Provisional Application 63/648108 filed on 5/15/2024 and further priority of Provisional Application 63/625784 filed on 1/26/2024. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged and granted.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Sustainability analysis is recited throughout the specification and the title of the application and is being determine, generated and displayed as shown in the figures for example for a human user to interpret. The Examiner notes that if these “obtained MCDA results” and “ranking of the candidate sustainability techniques”, as argued, are not being interpreted by a human, then what is the analysis being done for? The Examiner refers to Figures 3 and 5-6 as an example. Applicant’s claims are merely using a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea, clearly identified by the Examiner below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is an improvement to the technology and points to Paragraph 0003 and Paragraph 0009, which recite no details on what is actually being improved or how the technology is improved. If the improvement is explicitly set forth in the specification, then what is the improvement from the claims? Applicant states the improvement does not need to be recited. Executing a probabilistic model and running simulations on a general purpose computer does not improve the technology, but rather merely uses the general purpose computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The Examiner points to the specification, which generically recites use of “the probabilistic model may be a Monte Carlo model, a stochastic simulation model, another probabilistic model, or a combination thereof” from Paragraph 0164, which is the only recitation of what the probabilistic model can entail and includes no further technical details as to what the model actually entails. Only generic use of a well-known model is recited in this application. Also, Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further notes running a simulation and implementing MCDA analysis narrows the abstract idea as it is just being run on a general purpose computer, where computers are able to handle large amounts of data faster than a human can. The Examiner further points to Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward sustainability analysis and ranking, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/Internet) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination based on rules and/or mathematical relationships (e.g. generic machine learning) to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further asserts there is no sort of data structure change claimed in any way, where the claimed transform step is merely a ranking of the candidate sustainability techniques, which is part of the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner again asserts the Applicant has not properly identified the additional elements. The Examiner asserts that running the analysis on a general purpose computer and implementing a stochastic model does not improve the functioning of the computer itself, but rather uses the computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea and merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the Desjardins memo, the Examiner asserts that Applicant’s claims only recite generic use of known modeling techniques. The Examiner points to the specification, which generically recites use of “the probabilistic model may be a Monte Carlo model, a stochastic simulation model, another probabilistic model, or a combination thereof” from Paragraph 0164, which is the only recitation of what the probabilistic model can entail and includes no further technical details as to what the model actually entails and merely amounts to generic use of the model. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more by improving the technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not state what the improvement is. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Executing a probabilistic model and running simulations on a general purpose computer does not improve the technology, but rather merely uses the general purpose computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The Applicant has clearly just thrown in buzz words from 101 examples issued by the USPTO like “transform”, but really the claims are just analyzing data and outputting the results using a general purpose computer. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
The Examiner has cited additional passages and clearly points to Applicant’s specification showing how broad the stochastic simulation model is, where no details of what the model actually entails is recite in the application (claims or specification). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 10 and 12-18 are directed toward a process, claims 19 are directed toward a product, and claims 1 and 3-9 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a computer-based system for optimizing sustainability for a real-world system, the computer-based system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the computer-based system to: obtain (i) multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) results, the MCDA results including candidate sustainability techniques for the real-world system, each of the candidate sustainability techniques being associated with a corresponding sustainability score, and (ii) criteria weighting values used to generate the MCDA results; identify at least one variable from at least one of (i) parameters of the candidate sustainability techniques and (ii) the obtained criteria weighting values; implement a stochastic simulation model, the stochastic simulation model configured to generate a simulated results distribution based on the identified at least one variable, each simulated result of the simulated results distribution being associated with at least one simulated value of the identified at least one variable; perform a comparison of the generated simulated results distribution and the obtained MCDA results; and transform the obtained MCDA results based on a result of the comparison by modifying a ranking of the candidate sustainability techniques and associated corresponding sustainability scores, thereby optimizing sustainability for the real-world system (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing MCDA results to determine sustainability scores based on weightings and parameters and generating simulated results using a probabilistic model and then optimizing sustainability of the real world system based on the results, where sustainability analysis is a commercial interaction.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the Independent claims additionally recite “a computer-based system, the computer-based system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the computer-based system to: implement a stochastic simulation model (claim 1)”; “a computer implemented method; a real world system; implementing a stochastic simulation model (claim 10)”; “non-transitory computer program product; a real world system; the non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium with computer code instructions stored thereon, the computer code instructions being configured, when executed by at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to; implement a stochastic simulation model (claim 19)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 17 additionally recite “store the generated simulated results distribution in a metrics repository (claims 5 and 14)”; “a metrics repository (claims 6 and 15)”; “a transportation system, a waste management system, a water system, an energy system, an industrial system, an ecosystem, or a natural resource system (claims 8 and 17)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, Method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “a computer-based system, the computer-based system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the computer-based system to: implement a stochastic simulation model (claim 1)”; “a computer implemented method; a real world system; implementing a stochastic simulation model (claim 10)”; “non-transitory computer program product; a real world system; the non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium with computer code instructions stored thereon, the computer code instructions being configured, when executed by at least one processor, to cause the at least one processor to; implement a stochastic simulation model (claim 19)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0172-0174 and Figures 23. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 3-9 and 12-18 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 17 additionally recite “store the generated simulated results distribution in a metrics repository (claims 5 and 14)”; “a metrics repository (claims 6 and 15)”; “a transportation system, a waste management system, a water system, an energy system, an industrial system, an ecosystem, or a natural resource system (claims 8 and 17)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadar et al. (US 2022/0308939 A1) in view of Luquist et al. (US 2017/0068761 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hadar et al. teach a computer-based system for optimizing sustainability for a real-world system, the computer-based system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, being configured to cause the computer-based system to (See Figure 1, Figure 10, and Paragraphs 0044-0047 – “optimize the economics of sustainability”):
obtain (i) multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) results, the MCDA results including candidate sustainability techniques for the real-world system, each of the candidate sustainability techniques being associated with a corresponding sustainability score (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053 – “receive, as input, attributes 114 and criteria 116 for the attributes 114”, Paragraph 0056 – “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) may be employed … formulation and criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final recommendation”, Paragraph 0062, and Paragraph 0071);
and (ii) criteria weighting values used to generate the MCDA results (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053, Paragraph 0062 – “According to a multi-dimension criteria subjective prioritization, the requirements module 132 can compute weights of importance for the different quality attributes”, and Paragraph 0071);
identify at least one variable from at least one of (i) parameters of the candidate sustainability techniques and (ii) the obtained criteria weighting values (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053, Paragraph 0062, Paragraph 0071 – “carbon emission criteria score compared to other candidate architectures”, and Paragraph 0073 – “evaluate the selected architecture 148 to determine possible adjustments of quality attribute requirements”);
generate a simulated results distribution based on the identified at least one variable, each simulated result of the simulated results distribution being associated with at least one simulated value of the identified at least one variable; and perform a comparison of the generated simulated results distribution and the obtained MCDA results (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0056 – “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) may be employed … formulation and criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final recommendation”, Paragraph 0060, Paragraph 0071 – “carbon emission criteria score compared to other candidate architectures”, Paragraph 0073 – “evaluate the selected architecture 148 to determine possible adjustments of quality attribute requirements”, Paragraph 0078, and Paragraph 0093 – “simulation”);
transform the obtained MCDA results based on a result of the comparison by modifying a ranking of the candidate sustainability techniques and associated corresponding sustainability scores, thereby optimizing sustainability for the real-world system (See Paragraph 0047, Paragraph 0056, Paragraph 0058 – “The evaluation may be done based on ranking a criterion score relative to requirements range”, Paragraph 0068 – “the best ranked alternative can be defined as an optimal range distance from the threshold”, Paragraph 0069 – “ranked and compared using multi-criteria definition and subjective weights of quality attributes”, and Paragraph 0083).
Hadar et al. do not specifically disclose implement a probabilistic model, the probabilistic model configured to. However, Luquist et al. further teach implement a probabilistic model, the probabilistic model configured to generate scores for an analysis on energy facilities (See Figures 1A-1C, Figure 18, Paragraph 0147 – “Combining elements through a Monte Carlo simulation”, Paragraph 0150, Paragraph 0179 – “concepts of interdependence, exposure, stochastics, and confidence”, and Paragraph 0191).
The teachings of Hadar et al. and Luquist et al. are related because both are analyzing energy features of a business to make determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the business energy analysis for sustainability system of Hadar et al. to incorporate the probabilistic model of Luquist et al. in order to better ensure that the results of the analysis are accurate and likely to occur.
Regarding Claim 3: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the computer-based system to: identify the at least one variable based on a value of the at least one variable meeting or exceeding a threshold value (See Paragraph 0066 – “the score evaluator 136 can normalize each quality attribute value relative to the absolute distance from the desired threshold” and Paragraph 0068 – “a threshold is needed to be passed or bound a certain level, the maximum distance of the best ranked alternative can be defined as an optimal range distance from the threshold”).
Regarding Claim 4: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the MCDA results are generated using an EVAluation of MIXed data (EVAMIX) model based on the parameters of the candidate sustainability techniques and the criteria weighting values (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053 – “receive, as input, attributes 114 and criteria 116 for the attributes 114”, Paragraph 0056 – “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) may be employed … formulation and criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final recommendation”, Paragraph 0062 – “According to a multi-dimension criteria subjective prioritization, the requirements module 132 can compute weights of importance for the different quality attributes”, and Paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 5: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the computer-based system to: store the generated simulated results distribution in a metrics repository (See Figure 1A, Figure 1B, Paragraph 0052, Paragraph 0063, and Paragraph 0131).
Regarding Claim 6: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach generate the simulated results distribution based on at least one metric stored in a metrics repository (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053 – “receive, as input, attributes 114 and criteria 116 for the attributes 114”, Paragraph 0056 – “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) may be employed … formulation and criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final recommendation”, Paragraph 0062 – “According to a multi-dimension criteria subjective prioritization, the requirements module 132 can compute weights of importance for the different quality attributes”, and Paragraph 0071).
Hadar et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the probabilistic model is further configured to. However, Luquist et al. further teach wherein the probabilistic model is further configured to generate scores for an analysis on energy facilities (See Figures 1A-1C, Paragraph 0147 – “Combining elements through a Monte Carlo simulation”, and Paragraph 0150).
The teachings of Hadar et al. and Luquist et al. are related because both are analyzing energy features of a business to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the business energy analysis for sustainability system of Hadar et al. to incorporate the probabilistic model of Luquist et al. in order to better ensure that the results of the analysis are accurate and likely to occur.
Regarding Claim 7: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the criteria weighting values are triple bottom line (TBL) criteria weighting values relating to the real-world system (See Figure 1B, Paragraph 0053 – “receive, as input, attributes 114 and criteria 116 for the attributes 114”, Paragraph 0056 – “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) may be employed … formulation and criteria selection, criteria weighting, evaluation, and final recommendation”, Paragraph 0062 – “According to a multi-dimension criteria subjective prioritization, the requirements module 132 can compute weights of importance for the different quality attributes”, Paragraph 0063, Paragraph 0069, and Paragraph 0071).
Regarding Claim 8: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the real-world system is a transportation system, a waste management system, a water system, an energy system, an industrial system, an ecosystem, or a natural resource system (See Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 9: Hadar et al. in view of Luquist et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Hadar et al. further teach wherein the at least one processor and the memory, with the computer code instructions, are further configured to cause the computer-based system to: output a graph representing the generated simulated results distribution (See Figure 6a, Figure 6B, Figure 7, Figure 9, and Paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12-19: Claims 10 and 12-19 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1 and 3-9 above; therefore the same rejections apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights