DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in reply to Applicants response after Non-Final rejection received on March 19, 2026. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/514,661, filed on July 20, 2023.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants amendments to claims 1 and 11 in the response on March 19, 2026. No claims are canceled at this time.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is a method and system for risk analysis which is a process.
Claim 11 states “a system operable on a processor and memory configured to”, where if capable of operation on a processor and memory, under BRI it’s not currently operating or stored thereon, and thus not one of the statutory classes and can be interpreted as software per se (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 10. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
receiving a definition of a risk event of a complex system based on a likelihood of said risk event, consequences of said risk event, prevention measures for said risk event, and mitigation measures for said risk event;
receiving risk event data for said likelihood of said risk event, said consequences of said risk event, said prevention measures for said risk event, and said mitigation measures for said risk event;
creating a model populated with said risk event data;
executing Monte Carlo simulations of said model to produce Monte Carlo results based on said risk event data;
analyzing and aggregating said Monte Carlo results of said likelihood of said risk event, said consequences of said risk event, said prevention measures for said risk event, and said mitigation measures for said risk event to create a nominal risk value of said risk event and asymmetric confidence intervals around said nominal risk value to produce a continuous gradient of outcomes;
organizing and presenting said outcomes for evaluation; and
prescribing an action for and to control said complex system in real time based on said prevention measures for said risk event and said mitigation measures for said risk event for a selected outcome.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving definitions of risk events, receiving risk event data, creating a model populated with risk event data, simulating the model, analyzing and aggregating the results with confidence intervals, presenting outcomes and prescribing actions recites elements which fit fundamental economic practice (financial systems), commercial interactions (schedule impacts for a maintenance depot), and managing personal behavior or relationships (putting on a seat belt). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claims 1 and 11 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Processes”. Receiving definitions of risk events, receiving risk event data, creating a model populated with risk event data, simulating the model, analyzing and aggregating the results with confidence intervals, presenting outcomes and prescribing actions recites concepts performed in the human mind. But for the “processor” and “memory” language (preamble), the claim encompasses defining and modeling risk event data and using confidence intervales in part to present an outcome using his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer hardware does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claims 1 and 11 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mathematica Concepts”. Creating a model populated with data, and executing Monte Carlo simulations with confidence intervals and gradient outcomes recites mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations. A model is a series of one or more mathematical algorithms. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claims 1 and 11 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. Claim 11 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite a processor and a memory (Claims 1 and 11). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0086, 0088] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices ([0086] The processor 1010 may be of any type suitable to the local application environment, and may include one or more of general-purpose computers, special purpose computers, microprocessors, digital signal processors (“DSPs”), field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), application-specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), and processors based on a multi-core processor architecture. [0088] The memory 1020 (or memories) may be one or more memories and of any type suitable to the local application environment, and may be implemented using any suitable volatile or nonvolatile data storage technology such as a semiconductor-based memory device, a magnetic memory device and system, an optical memory device and system, fixed memory and removable memory.) and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, Mental Processes, and/or Mathematical Concepts and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
The Applicants response begin on page 1 of the remarks with a summary of the claims and a comment on the references in the Specification. The Applicant states that the nonpatent literature is not material reference to the claimed subject matter.
The Examiner thinks if the references were material enough to be listed in the Specification then they are sufficiently related to the application and therefore should be provided on an IDS sheet with copies.
The Arguments begin with the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 (remarks pages 1-2) where the Applicant argues that the amendment to the claims to add “to control” is sufficient to overcome the rejection as, among other things, prescribing an action for and to control the complex system, is not an abstract idea.
The Examiner does not agree. The limitation is says for and to control but is not positively reciting an actual controlling step for controlling the system. It’s saying there an action to be taken but it does not include any sort of signal or other step which is taking said action. To control is a function to be taken in the future.
The arguments move on to Step 2A Prong 2 where the arguments are that the complex and new process to produce a continuous gradient of outcomes to prescribe an action to control the complex system imposes meaningful limits. Additionally the Monte Carlo simulation results based on the risk event is performed with computational efficiency to produce the results. Applicant argues this is a practical application.
The Examiner does not agree. The prescribed action is in in the future and is not positively recited. Further the action could be to simply to instruct a person to make a change to the complex system. Also, the idea that computationally efficiency is performed has already been established by the courts as application of a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception
The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieve more quickly, i.e. through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations. SiRF Tech., Inc.
The arguments move on the Step 2B where the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner position that the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The arguments are that the amended limitation of “an action for and to control the system” imposes meaningful limits. Further the Applicant argues the Monte Carlo simulation results based on risk event(s) is computationally efficient.
The Examiner disagrees. The claims do not include significantly more than the judicial exception and are not integrated into a practical application. The computer is used as a tool to perform the otherwise abstract idea. The argument of computational efficiency has been answered already. Simply producing a result more quickly and accurately does not meaningfully limit the claims. Also, the prescribed action, for example, in the disclosure is putting on a seatbelt, or to replace contract labor. These are not functions automatically handled by the complex system, rather they are instructions for humans to execute. Therefore, the risk management is simply using a computer to perform the complex calculations and mathematical function to assist a human in performing some action. This is not indicative or integrating into practical application.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 still stands. The claims are not allowed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter regarding claims 1-20:
The independent claims which considered as a whole include:
Receiv[ing] a definition of a risk event of a complex system based on a likelihood of said risk event, consequences of said risk event, prevention measures for said risk event, and mitigation measures for said risk event;
Receiv[ing] risk event data for said likelihood of said risk event, said consequences of said risk event, said prevention measures for said risk event, and said mitigation measures for said risk event;
Creat[ing] a model populated with said risk event data;
Execut[ing] Monte Carlo simulations of said model to produce Monte Carlo results based on said risk event data;
Analyz[ing] and aggregating said Monte Carlo results of said likelihood of said risk event, said consequences of said risk event, said prevention measures for said risk event, and said mitigation measures for said risk event to create a nominal risk value of said risk event and asymmetric confidence intervals around said nominal risk value to produce a continuous gradient of outcomes;
Organiz[ing] and presenting said outcomes for evaluation; and prescribing an action for said complex system based on said prevention measures for said risk event and said mitigation measures for said risk event for a selected outcome.
The dependent claims are indicated as allowable based on the independent claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
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 DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 April 3, 2026