CTNF 17/919,910 CTNF 95226 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The present application, 17919910, filed 10/19/2022 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2020/018115, international filing date: 04/28/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. A. a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus as specified in claim 5. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: Estimating the Occurrence Rate of an Event based on a Gaussian Cox Process . 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: A. a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points. There is no mention of any second apparatus in the specification . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-7 are 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. Claim 1 recites “the number of times” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as a number of time. Claims 5-6 recite a similar limitation and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-4 and 7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, the term “estimating” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “estimating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation of “estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region” is indefinite. Paragraph [0057] discloses an equation for calculating the error, however, the specification fails to disclose any tolerance range between the estimated rate function and the actual rate function. Paragraph [0031] discloses an equation for the estimated rate function, however, the equation is not recited in the claim. Claim 3 recites “estimating occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points” and is rejected for the same reason. Claim 5 recites a similar limitation as claims 1 and 3 and is rejected for the same reason. Claim 6 recites a similar limitation as claim and is rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-4 and 7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 1, claims 1-4 recite an apparatus and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 5 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claim 6 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claim 7 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture. Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites An estimation apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute: taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs, and analytically estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region . The above underlined limitations of estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of events in a space region amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “estimating” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually deriving a rate function based on a given set of inputs using pen and paper. See also paragraph [0031] for the estimated rate function and paragraphs [0032-0036] which discloses how the components or variables in the rate function are calculated. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea. Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a memory; and a processor configured to execute: taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs. However, the additional elements of “a memory” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer memory; and as a generic computer component for executing a series of operations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional element of “taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer memory; and as a generic computer component for executing a series of operations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional element of “taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Under step 2A prong 1, claims 2-4 and 7 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 2 recites further details of the inputs to the abstract idea of estimating the rate function “wherein the predetermined condition is that the first function is a symmetric function and an eigenvalue is 0 or greater and 1/R or less when the observation count is R and the first function is used as a kernel function of an integral operator”; claim 3 recites further abstract idea of “estimating occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points”; claim 4 recites further details of the abstract idea of estimating the rate function “wherein the estimating of the rate function estimates the rate function including the observation count, a parameter representing a square root of an average value of the rate function, a second function obtained by integrating the first function in the space region, a vector representing values of the first function at the observation points, and a vector representing reciprocals of square roots of estimated values of the rate function at the observation points” which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 2 and 4 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea. Under step 2A prong 2, claim 3 recites the following additional elements: taking a set of estimation target points representing points, the points being in the space region and being estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs; claim 7 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer to operate as the estimation apparatus according to claim 1. However, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “a computer” in claim 7 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer for executing the instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “taking a set of estimation target points representing points, the points being in the space region and being estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs” in claim 3 is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Under step 2B, claims 3 and 7 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and “a computer” in claim 7 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; and as a generic computer for executing the instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “taking a set of estimation target points representing points, the points being in the space region and being estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs” in claim 3 is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites An estimation system comprising: a first apparatus including a memory and a processor; and a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus, wherein the processor of the first apparatus is configured to take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs, and analytically estimate a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region , and wherein the processor of the second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points . The above underlined limitations of estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of events in a space region and using the rate function to estimate occurrence rates of events at estimation target points amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “estimate” and “estimate” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor of a first apparatus” and “a processor of a second apparatus”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor of a first apparatus” and “a processor of a second apparatus” language, the claim encompasses manually deriving a rate function based on a given set of inputs and using the derived rate function to estimate occurrence rates of events at estimation target points using pen and paper. See also paragraph [0031] for the estimated rate function and paragraphs [0032-00367] which discloses how the components or variables in the rate function are calculated and how to estimate occurrence rates of events at estimation target points by substituting in the target points into the rate function in Equation (7). Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea. Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a first apparatus including a memory and a processor; and a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus, wherein the processor of the first apparatus is configured to take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs; wherein the processor of the second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs. However, the additional elements of “a first apparatus including a memory and a processor” and “a second apparatus including a memory and a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computers having a generic memory and a generic processor for executing a series of operations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “a first apparatus including a memory and a processor” and “a second apparatus including a memory and a processor” are also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that includes a first apparatus and second apparatus implementing the abstract idea where the output of the first apparatus is used as input to the second apparatus. The additional elements of “take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs” and “take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application. Under step 2B, claim 5 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first apparatus including a memory and a processor” and “a second apparatus including a memory and a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computers having a generic memory and a generic processor for executing a series of operations) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. The additional elements of “a first apparatus including a memory and a processor” and “a second apparatus including a memory and a processor” are also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that includes a first apparatus and second apparatus implementing the abstract idea where the output of the first apparatus is used as input to the second apparatus. The additional elements of “take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs” and “take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 6, it is directed to a method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 6 would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by John et al. (NPL – “ Large-Scale Cox Process Inference using Variational Fourier Features ”), hereinafter John . Regarding claim 1, John teaches an estimation apparatus comprising: a memory (John page 8 left col; memory – memory) ; and a processor configured to execute (John page 8 left col; processor – GPU) : taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs (John page 2 section 2-2.2; set of observation points - x n ; events observed in a space region – taxi pick-ups in a city; observation count – number of days D o ; first function – link function; predetermined condition - must be non-negative everywhere; parameter of the first function – offset β ) , and analytically estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region (John page 2 section 2-2.2; rate function - λ ∙ = ( f ∙ + β ) 2 ; page 8-9 Large-Scale demonstration section “We consider a 3D spatiotemporal model where we include time-of-day. As the training set we took 100 weekdays, containing 113 020 events in total … In Figure 4, we show time slices through the resulting 3D model at every three hours … We model the rate of events with large spatial and temporal variation across a large city area”; Fig. 4). Regarding claim 3, John teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, John teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute: taking a set of estimation target points representing points, the points being in the space region and being estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs (John page 2 section 2-2.2) , and estimating occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points (John page 2 section 2-2.2; section 5.2). Regarding claim 6, it is directed to a method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 6 would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 6. Regarding claim 7, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer to operate as the estimation apparatus according to claim 1. All steps stored in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim 7 would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 7 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hideaki et al. (JP 2019-008637 A), hereinafter Hideaki. Hideaki is cited in the IDS submitted on 10/19/2022 . Regarding claim 1, Hideaki teaches an estimation apparatus comprising: a memory (Hideaki paragraph [0030]; memory – RAM or ROM) ; and a processor configured to execute (Hideaki paragraph [0030]; processor – CPU) : taking a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs (Hideaki paragraphs [0031-0039]; set of observation points - Tu; events observed in a space region – number of times of failure Nu; observation count – number of device U; first function – deterioration function; predetermined condition - must be non-negative; parameter of the first function – θ) , and analytically estimating a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region (Hideaki paragraphs [0035-0036] ; rate function – formula (2)). Regarding claim 3, John teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Further, John teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute: taking a set of estimation target points representing points, the points being in the space region and being estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs (Hideaki paragraphs [0081-0101]) , and estimating occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points (Hideaki paragraphs [0081-0101]). Regarding claim 5, Hideaki teaches an estimation system comprising: a first apparatus including a memory and a processor (Hideaki Fig. 1 and paragraph [0030] first apparatus - parameter estimation apparatus 100) ; and a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus (Hideaki paragraph [0081] second apparatus – failure predicting apparatus 200) , wherein the processor of the first apparatus is configured to take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs, and analytically estimate a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region (Hideaki paragraphs [0031-0039]; set of observation points - Tu; events observed in a space region – number of times of failure Nu; observation count – number of device U; first function – deterioration function; predetermined condition - must be non-negative; parameter of the first function – θ; rate function – formula (2)) , and wherein the processor of the second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points (Hideaki [0081-0101]). Regarding claim 6, it is directed to a method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. All steps performed by the method of claim 6 would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 6. Regarding claim 7, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer to operate as the estimation apparatus according to claim 1. All steps stored in the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim 7 would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 1 analysis applies equally to claim 7 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John in view of Hideaki . Regarding claim 5, John teaches an estimation system comprising: a first apparatus including a memory and a processor (John page 8 left col; memory – memory processor – GPU) ; and a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus , wherein the processor of the first apparatus is configured to take a set of observation points representing events observed in a space region of a predetermined dimensionality in an observation, an observation count representing the number of times the observation is performed, a first function satisfying a predetermined condition, and a parameter of the first function as inputs, and analytically estimate a rate function for obtaining occurrence rates of the events in the space region (John page 2 section 2-2.2; set of observation points - x n ; events observed in a space region – taxi pick-ups in a city; observation count – number of days D o ; first function – link function; predetermined condition - must be non-negative everywhere; parameter of the first function – offset; rate function - λ ∙ = ( f ∙ + β ) 2 ; page 8-9 Large-Scale demonstration section “We consider a 3D spatiotemporal model where we include time-of-day. As the training set we took 100 weekdays, containing 113 020 events in total … In Figure 4, we show time slices through the resulting 3D model at every three hours … We model the rate of events with large spatial and temporal variation across a large city area”; Fig. 4) , and wherein the processor of the first second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points (John page 2 section 2-2.2; section 5.2). John does not explicitly teach a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus ; and wherein the processor of the second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points. However, on the same field of endeavor, Hideaki discloses a system comprising a first apparatus including a memory and a processor configured to estimate a rate function; and a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus configured to perform rate prediction based on the estimated rate function (Hideaki Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0030-0039 and 0081-0101]; first apparatus - parameter estimation apparatus 100 ; second apparatus – failure predicting apparatus 200). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify John using Hideaki and configure the system of John to include a second apparatus comprising a memory and a processor to take the set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points because duplication of parts is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B for more information. See also Hideaki paragraphs [0149-0150] which discloses that separating or combining device 100 and 200 is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the combination of John as modified in view of Hideaki teaches a second apparatus including a memory and a processor, and being different from the first apparatus; and wherein the processor of the second apparatus is configured to take a set of estimation target points representing points, which are in the space region and are estimation targets for the occurrence rates of the events, and the rate function as inputs, and estimate occurrence rates of events at the estimation target points . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection discussed above. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art references cited explicitly teach or suggest, in combination with other limitations of the claims, the features of “wherein the predetermined condition is that the first function is a symmetric function and an eigenvalue is 0 or greater and 1/R or less when the observation count is R and the first function is used as a kernel function of an integral operator” as recited in claim 2; and “wherein the analytically estimating of the rate function estimates the rate function including the observation count, a parameter representing a square root of an average value of the rate function, a second function obtained by integrating the first function in the space region, a vector representing values of the first function at the observation points, and a vector representing reciprocals of square roots of estimated values of the rate function at the observation points” as recited in claim 4 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F. 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. /Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 2 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 3 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 5 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 6 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 7 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 8 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 9 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 10 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 11 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 12 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 13 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 14 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 15 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 16 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 17 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 18 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 19 Art Unit: 2151 Application/Control Number: 17/919,910 Page 20 Art Unit: 2151