DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 5/16/2025 filling of Application 19/210,534. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
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 § 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 non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 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, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case Claims 1-7 are directed toward a risk management visualization system. Claims 8-14 are directed toward a computer-implemented method of risk management visualization. Claims 15-20 are directed toward a computer program product for risk management visualization. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of processing data to probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A risk management visualization system, comprising:
trigger a request to one or more solvers to fetch a value corresponding to a KPI from the list of input values;
in response to the one or more solvers completing processing the request;
generating a response comprising an input from the list of input values and the value corresponding to the KPI; and
generate a probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The limitations of:
A risk management visualization system, comprising:
trigger a request to one or more solvers to fetch a value corresponding to a KPI from the list of input values;
in response to the one or more solvers completing processing the request;
generating a response comprising an input from the list of input values and the value corresponding to the KPI; and
generate a probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value.
are directed to analyzing data to determine the probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value which is directed to method of organizing human activity including risk mitigation and fundamental business practices
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The instant claim recites mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps of
A risk management visualization system, comprising:
determine a value corresponding to a KPI from the list of input values;
generating a response comprising an input from the list of input values and the value corresponding to the KPI; and
generate a probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value.
are drawn to observation and evaluation and mental steps. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The 2019 PEG states that additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A risk management visualization system, comprising:
a system architecture having a UI layer, a backend layer, a solvers layer and at least one server;
the at least one server, each comprising a processor and memory, is configured to:
receive, via a trigger solve application programming interface to the backend layer, a list of input values;
continually check, by the backend layer via a check if solver is busy application programming interface, if the one or more solvers are still processing the request;
in response to the one or more solvers completing processing the request;
call by the backend layer via a get input application programming interface to the one or more solvers to fetch a JSON formatted data
display, using the UI layer, by one or more call back scripts that transmit requests to the solvers layer and by one or more python script modules, a visualization of a risk profile for the KPI, the visualization indicating a probability that an actual KPI value differs from a predicted KPI value.
However, the computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim language further describes various software layers of the generic computer hardware (backend layer, solver interface, solvers layer, user interface layer) merely amounts to a technological environment for implementing the abstract idea. The abstract idea of displaying a
risk profile is generally linked to an environment with various software layers (that do not
comprise a particular concrete structure) for implementation. Therefore, the environment does
not provide a practical application. See MPEP $2106.05(h). The claims do recite the use of
JSON format, but the use of JSON format is tangential to the inventive concept of displaying a
risk profile. Moreover, JSON format is well-known in the field. Therefore, the use of JSON
merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP $2106.05(g).
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the receipt of a list of input values is considered mere data gathering which is incidental to the primary process in a similar way that obtaining information about credit card transactions to be analyzed was incidental to the primary process explained above. Further, MPEP 2106.05 also states Examiner should evaluate whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. In this case, the broadly recited receipt of data is well known. The MPEP also cites several examples of mere data gathering that have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity including gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price (see OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93); and obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions (see CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
When viewing the generic receipt in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, the receipt of project data is recited broadly in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(d) states receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed generically (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (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)). As such, the broadly claimed receipt of data is considered well-known and conventional as established by the MPEP and relevant case law.
Further, the use of JSON format is well-understood, routine, and conventional; as evidenced by ||[0027], [0032]-[0033], [0037], [0043], [0049], and [0052] of US 20180084049 A1 to Wu et al. Wu teaches that JSON is a text-based format that is appropriate for reporting metrics and KPIs. Therefore, the use of JSON is conventional. The conventional nature of JSON is also evidenced by para. 52 of the present application, which teaches that any suitable format, including JSON, can be used to feed responses from a solver. The recitation of JSON formatting does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea in the claims. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When viewing the generic receipt in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1-7 further limit the mental processes methods of human activity rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-7that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 8-19 are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights