DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to claims filed 26 July 2024 for application 18785871 filed 26 July 2024. Currently claims 1-22 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 9, 10, 18, 20 an 21 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 6, 9, 18 and 20 recite the limitation "independent variable" in lines 3 and 2 respectively, claims 18 and 20 are largely the same as claims 6 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 21 are rejected based on their dependence on rejected claims.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In step 1, claims 1 and 12 are directed to the statutory category of a system.
In step 2a prong 1, claims 1 and 12 recite, in part, receive inputs for a model associated with an issue, create a scenario generator, execute the generator with the inputs to generate scenarios, execute runs of the model with the scenarios to generate outputs and categorize the outputs. The limitations of receive, create, execute and categorize are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” and “memory” in the context of the claims, the limitations encompass creating scenarios for different variables of stakeholders and issues to create categorized outputs in the mind or with aid. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In step 2a prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “processor” and “memory”. The computer components in the claim are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
In step 2b, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “processor” and “memory” to perform the steps of the claims amount 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 and 13-22 recite further limitations of issues relate to models, models are generated via data generating processes, saving inputs to obtain baselines, save dependent variables, run the scenarios a plurality of times, save values for dependent and independent variables, keeping variables fixed, randomly and uniformly varying independent variables, specific independent variables, and specific dependent variables. These limitations amount to the same abstract idea identified in step 2a prong 1. No further additional elements are presented, therefore, the claims do not amount to a practical application in step 2a prong 2 or significantly more than the abstract idea itself in step 2b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bagherpour et al. (US 20180046931).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Bagherpour discloses: A decision-making analysis computer device for advanced horizon scanning and deep searching, the computer device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, the at least one processor programmed to:
receive one or more inputs for a model associated with an issue (“Embodiments of the present invention provide both a method and an apparatus for ranking a given range of possible outcome scenarios for a defined issue, wherein the defined issue concerns a plurality of different agents having different positions and different levels of concern about the issue. Typically, embodiments of the present invention will produce a rank-ordered list of possible outcome scenarios for the defined issue, wherein the possible outcome scenarios are presented in a sequence that goes from most likely occur to the least likely to occur.” [0055]);
create a scenario generator [0055];
execute the scenario generator with the one or more inputs to generate a plurality of scenarios [0055];
execute a plurality of runs of the model with the plurality of scenarios as inputs to generate a plurality of outputs [0055]; and
categorize the plurality of outputs of the model of the plurality of the plurality of runs of the model [0055].
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 1, wherein the issue relates to one or more models ([0056] describes elements of a model for an issue).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 1, wherein the model is generated via a data generating process (DGP) (“While carrying out these functions with the microprocessor against data stored in data structures located in the computer's primary or secondary data storage areas, computer-implemented embodiments of the present invention may also be configured to generate and present visualizations (i.e., graphs and plots) illustrating, for each step in the process, certain intermediate data values, such as reality-based utility payoff scores, which helps analysts, users, subject matter experts and/or operators alike better visualize and comprehend the negotiation landscapes associated with the issues and the disputes to be negotiated.” [0058]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to:
save one or more of the one or more inputs as data inputs; and execute the data inputs through the DGP model to generate baseline results (“While carrying out these functions with the microprocessor against data stored in data structures located in the computer's primary or secondary data storage areas, computer-implemented embodiments of the present invention may also be configured to generate and present visualizations (i.e., graphs and plots) illustrating, for each step in the process, certain intermediate data values, such as reality-based utility payoff scores, which helps analysts, users, subject matter experts and/or operators alike better visualize and comprehend the negotiation landscapes associated with the issues and the disputes to be negotiated.” [0058]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 4, wherein the DGP model outputs one or more dependent variables, and wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to save the one or more dependent variables from the execution of the DGP model with the one or more inputs as baseline results (“As shown in FIG. 12, the outcome scenario ranking system 1100 may be configured to determine, display and/or present a multiplicity of different outputs, depending on the specific objectives, requirements and wishes of the users and/or system operators. These outputs may include a reverse induction combination table 1215 for each stakeholder, a utility payoff score 1220 for each outcome scenario for each stakeholder, a utility payoff schedule 1225 for each stakeholder, an influence-weighted payoff score 1230 for each possible outcome scenario for each stakeholder, a reality-based position 1205 for each stakeholder, a combined influence-weighted payoff score table 1235 for all stakeholders, an egalitarian most likely outcome scenario 1240, an average influence-weighted payoff (AIWP) score 1245 for each possible outcome scenario, an amount of friction (AOF) 1250 for each possible outcome scenario, and an ordered list 1260 of possible outcome scenarios ranked from most to least likely based on the AIWP scores and the amount of friction for each one of the possible outcome scenarios in the range of possible outcome scenarios.” [0131]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to run the plurality of scenarios through the DPG model a plurality of times (“While carrying out these functions with the microprocessor against data stored in data structures located in the computer's primary or secondary data storage areas, computer-implemented embodiments of the present invention may also be configured to generate and present visualizations (i.e., graphs and plots) illustrating, for each step in the process, certain intermediate data values, such as reality-based utility payoff scores, which helps analysts, users, subject matter experts and/or operators alike better visualize and comprehend the negotiation landscapes associated with the issues and the disputes to be negotiated.” [0058]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to save values for the dependent variables and the independent variables (Tables 4-17, memory [0133]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive a dependent variable of interest, wherein the dependent variable of interest is kept fixed with original values in the plurality of scenarios (Fig 2 Step 225 “For the selected factor, assign to the selected possible outcome scenario the option that best describes the selected possible outcome scenario, thereby linking the assigned option for the selected factor to the selected possible outcome scenario”).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 8, wherein the dependent variable of interest is a stakeholder position (“The fifth stage (Stage V) of operation (represented at step S125 of FIG. 1) comprises generating and displaying landscape visualizations illustrating, for example, the utility payoff schedules for each stakeholder, the stated positions for the stakeholders, the reality-based positions for the stakeholders, the influence-weighted payoff scores for all of the possible outcome scenarios, and a rank-ordered list of influence-driven outcome scenarios for the defined issue. Stage V is discussed in more detail below in connection with the detailed discussion of FIG. 6.” [0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagherpour in view of Haxholdt et al. (US 20170236132).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to vary independent variables … across their entire range (“Stage IV (illustrated as step S120 in FIG. 1), comprises running analytics against the collection of reality-based payoff scores generated in Stage III to determine (a) the egalitarian payoff scores for each outcome scenario in the range of possible outcome scenarios, (b) the average influence-weighted payoff scores for each outcome scenario, (c) the amount of friction associated with all of the possible outcome scenarios, and (d) the most likely outcome scenario based on the average influence-weighted payoff scores and friction costs. The egalitarian payoff score for a possible outcome scenario is the average payoff score for a possible outcome scenario when all of the stakeholders are assumed to hold the same level of influence on the defined issue. In other words, the stakeholders' relative influence and levels of concern are disregarded for purposes of calculating the egalitarian payoff score for a possible outcome scenario. The egalitarian payoff scores for each possible outcome scenario are then compared against each other to determine which outcome scenarios or more or less likely when influence and levels of concern are not considered. Stage IV is described in more detail below in connection with the detailed discussion of FIG. 5.” [0061]).
Bagherpour does not explicitly disclose: vary independent variables randomly and uniformly.
Haxholdt teaches: vary independent variables randomly and uniformly (“Some examples of the present disclosure can generate values for the independent variables, so that a predictive modeling method can accurately generate an indication of interest for the item. For example, the processor can use a uniform random variable technique to generate a value for an independent variable. Additionally or alternatively, the processor can use a predictive model to generate a value for an independent variable.” [0169]).
Bagherpour and Haxholdt are in the same field of endeavor of modeling systems to predict outputs and are analogous. Bagherpour discloses modeling issues and stakeholders to predict ideal outcomes. Haxholdt modeling interest for items using varying independent variables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the known independent variables as disclosed by Bagherpour with the known random uniform variation of an independent variable as taught by Haxholdt to yield predictable results of accurately modeling the decision space.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Bagherpour discloses: The computer device of claim 9, wherein the independent variables include at least one of stakeholders' influence, importance, and group influence (“The method of claim 3, further comprising the steps of:
a) receiving an influence rating for each stakeholder; and
b) calculating an influence-weighted utility payoff score for each stakeholder for each possible outcome scenario by multiplying the utility payoff score for said each possible outcome scenario for said each stakeholder by the influence rating for said each stakeholder.” Claim 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Venkataraman et al. (US 20180174066 A1) discloses predicting states for stakeholders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NILSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5246. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-3.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571)-272-3677. 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.
/ERIC NILSSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
