DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing on September 20, 2025. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claims priority to Japanese application 2024-178479 filed on October 10, 2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on September 30, 2025. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
There are over 1500 applications and patents with an identical or extremely similar title as applicants current selection. The current title is also not descriptive of the actual invention.
The following title is suggested: Information processing apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for risk management of projects or designs.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] states the technical field is “The present disclosure relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”. This is not a technical field. The technical field is systems for assessing risk management including associated programs and methods.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 1-11 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 system, method, and product for risk management for projects which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 6 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1 and product Claim 1. Claim 6 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
calculating a risk index value related to at least one or more risk factors accompanying a design result prior to present time by using the design result at least prior to the present time related to a plurality of design tasks constituting a design flow of a system, requirements input in natural language for the design of the system, and constraint conditions;
analyzing the risk factors based on the calculated risk index value; and
presenting an analysis result of the risk factors to a user.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Calculating a risk index value from a risk factor of a design based on constraint conditions, analyzing the risk and producing a result recites managing human behavior or relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor and at least one memory in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program in Claim 11 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 11 are 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”. Calculating a risk index value from a risk factor of a design based on constraint conditions, analyzing the risk and producing a result recites concepts performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The at least one processor and at least one memory in Claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program in Claim 11 appears to be just software. Claims 1 and 11 are 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 at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor to execute the instructions (Claim 1) [no claimed computer hardware or additional elements] (claim 6) and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Claim 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, 6, 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. [0109] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices (Examples of the terminal 20 include portable terminal devices such as a smartphone, a mobile phone, a game console, or a tablet, and a computer (a personal computer, a laptop computer), or the like. The terminal 20 can be any equipment or device as long as the terminal 20 can accept an operation by a user and can communicate with the information processing apparatus 10.) 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, 6, and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 6 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes 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.
Claim 7 can be equated to MPEP 2106.05(d) II. ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claims 8 and 9 are similar to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Claim 10 is a combination of MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;
Dependents claims 2-5 are identical to claims 7-10 and rejected under the same premise.
Therefore, the claims 2-5, and 7-10 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-11 are not patent-eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anas et al. U.S. Publication 2006/0259336 A1 (hereafter Anas).
Regarding claim 1, at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (see at least [0005] Systems for evaluating risks associated with a project include a processor implementing risk evaluation activities and a storage device in communication with the processor. [0016] The host system 104 executes computer instructions for implementing risk evaluation and management activities and the client systems 102 are coupled to the host system 104 via a network 106.) to:
calculate a risk index value related to at least one or more risk factors accompanying a design result prior to present time by using the design result at least prior to the present time related to a plurality of design tasks constituting a design flow of a system, requirements input in natural language for the design of the system, and constraint conditions (see at least [0030] A baseline risk score is calculated for the project activity using the information provided in steps 312 and 316. The baseline risk score may be calculated as described herein. Each of the values in columns 420-424 is multiplied by the value in column 430. The results of each multiplication are entered in columns 432-436, respectively. The values in columns 432-436 reflect the severity score for each risk category having factored in its likelihood of occurrence. The values in columns 432-436 are added together and entered into column 438. This value is the baseline or unmitigated risk score. As described above, only three numerical values are used in ranking the three risk categories, thereby limiting the range of possible baseline risk score values. The scores calculated and entered in columns 432-438 may be color-coded by severity level so that an individual reviewing the new project file can quickly determine and prioritize the project activities that require immediate attention.); and
analyze the risk factors based on the calculated risk index value, and presents an analysis result of the risk factors to a user (see at least [0029] Once all desired risk items are imported into the new project file from risk libraries, the project manager (possibly with team input) may also manually input project-specific risk items not originating from a library at step 306. For these original risk items, which are coded by the risk management application 110 as originating from the user at one of client systems 102 (e.g., `U` in column 402 of FIG. 4), the project manager is prompted to select one of the project disciplines listed in the new project file at step 308. This may be accomplished by selecting a project phase from column 414, upon which a drop down list of related project activities is provided (not shown) For example, the issue related to crane operation may correspond with a project phase or discipline of outage or installation, as selected from the drop down list in column 414. As shown in FIG. 4, a column 416 displays an issue/failure associated with the project activity (received from step 208 of FIG. 2). The project manager is prompted to enter a potential risk associated with the failure/issue provided for the project activity in column 418 at step 310. At step 312, the project manager is prompted to rank each risk according to three risk categories. This step is referred to as a severity ranking 326. A technical risk is entered in column 420, a schedule risk is entered in column 422, and a cost risk is entered in column 424. A technical risk refers to risks involving quality of service. Technical risks adversely impact the availability, reliability, safety, or quality of the provided product or service. For example, a risk item resulting in poor product reliability would be scored as having high technical risk. A schedule risk involves timeliness or capability of delivering a product or service per schedule. A realized schedule risk would result in departure from on-time completion of a project task or deliverable relative to the project schedule. A cost risk involves expenses incurred in the event that the risk is realized. A realized cost risk would result in unexpected, un-budgeted, expenses in order to recover from, or mitigate against, the failure/issue. The ranking values include 1, 5 and 9, with 1 indicating a low risk, 5 indicating a moderate risk, and 9 indicating a high risk. By providing only three ranking values, a project manager or individual assessing the risks are not burdened with the subjectivity involved in assessing the severity of a risk including relativity of the severity between or among multiple risks as would otherwise be encountered using a ranking system of, e.g., 1 through 9 in increments of 1.).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to calculate the risk index value by assuming that a design item that has not yet been used in the design of the system at the present time is used (see at least [0029] At step 312, the project manager is prompted to rank each risk according to three risk categories. This step is referred to as a severity ranking 326. A technical risk is entered in column 420, a schedule risk is entered in column 422, and a cost risk is entered in column 424. A technical risk refers to risks involving quality of service. Technical risks adversely impact the availability, reliability, safety, or quality of the provided product or service. For example, a risk item resulting in poor product reliability would be scored as having high technical risk. A schedule risk involves timeliness or capability of delivering a product or service per schedule. A realized schedule risk would result in departure from on-time completion of a project task or deliverable relative to the project schedule. A cost risk involves expenses incurred in the event that the risk is realized. A realized cost risk would result in unexpected, un-budgeted, expenses in order to recover from, or mitigate against, the failure/issue..
Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to: determine whether or not an already completed design needs to be modified based on the calculated risk index value (see at least [0032] Steps 324-334 enable a project manager or authorized individual to identify any mitigating actions that may be performed in order to minimize or negate the risks and recalculate the severity rankings and current risk score to represent the modified or minimized risk associated with performing the mitigating action. Steps 324-334 further enable a project manager or other authorized individual to evaluate the efficacy of completed mitigating actions, their effect upon the project activity risks in terms of the revised current risk scores, and to save this information in a learning library that can be used by others.); and
display an alert on a terminal of the user, if it is determined that the already completed design needs to be modified (see at least [0034] At step 326, the project manager enters a mitigating action in column 439. Once the mitigating action has been completed at step 328, the project manager enters new severity rankings in columns 420-424 at step 330. The new severity rankings are determined by the extent to which a risk has been minimized by performing the mitigating action. The current risk score is then recalculated using this new information at step 332 and the results are saved to the new project file in column 438.) .
Regarding claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to: perform processing, in a case where the risk index value is greater than a predetermined threshold, to identify a reason why at least one or more of the risk index values is greater than the predetermined threshold (see at least [0034] At step 326, the project manager enters a mitigating action in column 439. Once the mitigating action has been completed at step 328, the project manager enters new severity rankings in columns 420-424 at step 330. The new severity rankings are determined by the extent to which a risk has been minimized by performing the mitigating action. The current risk score is then recalculated using this new information at step 332 and the results are saved to the new project file in column 438. The project activities for which a mitigating action has been entered are flagged by the risk management application (e.g., `U` for user-provided) and stored in the new project file. All other project activities are flagged as `L` (as originating from the master or project library).) ; and
display the identified reason on the terminal of the user (see at least Fig. 4) .
Regarding claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to: perform processing, in a case where the risk index value is greater than the predetermined threshold, to identify countermeasures for reducing the risk index value that is greater than the predetermined threshold (see at least [0032] Steps 324-334 enable a project manager or authorized individual to identify any mitigating actions that may be performed in order to minimize or negate the risks and recalculate the severity rankings and current risk score to represent the modified or minimized risk associated with performing the mitigating action. Steps 324-334 further enable a project manager or other authorized individual to evaluate the efficacy of completed mitigating actions, their effect upon the project activity risks in terms of the revised current risk scores, and to save this information in a learning library that can be used by others.); and
display the identified countermeasures on the terminal of the user (see at least [0034] At step 326, the project manager enters a mitigating action in column 439. Once the mitigating action has been completed at step 328, the project manager enters new severity rankings in columns 420-424 at step 330. The new severity rankings are determined by the extent to which a risk has been minimized by performing the mitigating action. The current risk score is then recalculated using this new information at step 332 and the results are saved to the new project file in column 438. The project activities for which a mitigating action has been entered are flagged by the risk management application (e.g., `U` for user-provided) and stored in the new project file.).
Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claims 1 and 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to risk management and mitigation including associated method and systems.
U.S. Publication 2003/0088446 A1 - A method and system for assessing risk associated with a project. The risk assessment system provides rules for various risk factors of risk types that are used to determine which risk factors of that risk type may be high. The risk assessment system also provides mitigating factors for the various risk factors. The risk assessment system receives information describing various projects. The information includes the data relating to each of the risk types. To assess the risk of a project, the risk assessment system identifies the risk factors that have a high risk by applying the rules to the data associated with that risk type. After the high risk factors are identified, the risk assessment system then identifies mitigating factors that apply to the high risk factors.
U.S. Publication 2015/0039384 A1 - Disclosed is a program and project management system. The program and project management system typically includes a processor, a memory, and a program module stored in the memory. The program and project management system is typically configured for: prompting a user to complete predefined program plan phase tasks; receiving risk information regarding the program, rigor level information regarding the program, and one or more defined business outcomes for the program; calculating a program risk score; determining a rigor level; based on the program risk score not exceeding a predefined risk score threshold and each defined business outcome including one or more associated metrics, initiating a program plan tollgate; based on successful completion of program plan tollgate, prompting the user to complete predefined program execution phase tasks; and determining whether the metrics associated with each defined business outcome have been satisfied.
U.S. Publication 2002/0194040 A1 - Computerized systems and methods for accessing and displaying project risk management information including an issue management module operable for creating, storing, and graphically displaying the status of a plurality of issues and a risk management module operable for creating, storing, and graphically displaying the status of a plurality of risks. The systems and methods utilizing a plurality of color-coded visual displays for graphically displaying the status of the plurality of issues and risks and a processor operable for manipulating information related to the plurality of issues and risks. The systems and methods further including a communications network operable for communicating information related to the plurality of issues and risks to and from a plurality of remote users simultaneously.
U.S. Publication 2016/0042304 A1 - Disclosed is a risk-based project management system. The risk-based project management system typically includes a processor, a memory, and a program module stored in the memory. During the planning phase of a project, the program and project management system is typically configured for: prompting a first user to provide inherent risk information regarding the project, receiving inherent risk information regarding the project; and based on the received inherent project risk information, calculating an inherent project risk score. During the execution phase of a project, the program and project management system is typically configured for receiving residual risk information regarding the project and, based on the received residual project risk information, calculating a residual project risk score.
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 September 29, 2026.
