DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 12/05/2025, amended claims 1 and 6-7.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 12/05/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of a mental process as asserted in the Office Action.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (the SME Guidance), in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether the claim recites any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Here, under prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly claims 6-7, recites the abstract elements of
generating, based on a plurality of event occurrence data, first event occurrence data and second event occurrence data, wherein the first event occurrence data are associated with a predetermined condition as a first main sample, and the second event occurrence data are associated with a condition that is similar to the predetermined condition as a first auxiliary sample; creating a plurality of allocation plans of resources associated with an event; identifying a first set of allocation plan of the plurality of allocation plans based on determining whether or not each of the plurality of allocation plans satisfies a predetermined evaluation criterion, wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a case where the first main sample and the first auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation plans; generating, based on the latest event occurrence data associated with the most recently occurred event, first future event occurrence data second future event occurrence data, wherein the first future occurrence data are associated with the predetermined condition as a second main sample, and wherein the second future event occurrence data are associated with the similar condition as a second auxiliary sample; reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources; and updating the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans based determining whether or not each of the allocation plans satisfies the predetermined evaluation criterion when in a case where the second main sample and the second auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation plans
Claims 1-20, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of process for creating allocation plans of resources………..reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims, including the claim features referred to by Applicant, recite mental processes.
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 is still not directed to an abstract idea because amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application (e.g., "reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
In Step 2A-Prong 2 the limitations referred to by Applicant (reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources) are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, they recite abstract ideas because these features referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea since these argued features recite mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, the features referred to by Applicant recite a mental process and an abstract idea, under Prong 1 of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 is patent eligible because it recites additional elements that are "unconventional or otherwise more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 6-7, are the recitations of “reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in this Office action. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
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. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1 and 6-7 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 6-7 include “generating, based on a plurality of event occurrence data, first event occurrence data and second event occurrence data, wherein the first event occurrence data are associated with a predetermined condition as a first main sample, and the second event occurrence data are associated with a condition that is similar to the predetermined condition as a first auxiliary sample; creating a plurality of allocation plans of resources associated with an event; identifying a first set of allocation plan of the plurality of allocation plans based on determining whether or not each of the plurality of allocation plans satisfies a predetermined evaluation criterion, wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a case where the first main sample and the first auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation plans; generating, based on the latest event occurrence data associated with the most recently occurred event, first future event occurrence data second future event occurrence data, wherein the first future occurrence data are associated with the predetermined condition as a second main sample, and wherein the second future event occurrence data are associated with the similar condition as a second auxiliary sample; reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources; and updating the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans based determining whether or not each of the allocation plans satisfies the predetermined evaluation criterion when in a case where the second main sample and the second auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation plans”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for creating allocation plans of resources. As a result, claims 1 and 6-7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-5 and 8-20 further describe the process for creating allocation plans of resources. As a result, claims 2-5 and 8-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 6-7.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1 and 6-7 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 6-7 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 6-7 include a processor and computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer-executable program. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 6-7 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-5 and 8-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 6-7. As a result, claims 2-5 and 8-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 6-7.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1 and 6-7 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1 and 6-7 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 6-7 include a processor and computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer-executable program. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1 and 6-7 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-5 and 8-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1 and 6-7. As a result, claims 2-5 and 8-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 6-7.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carley et al. (US Pat No. 6,701,345) (hereinafter Carley et al.), in view of Horowitz et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0155628) (hereinafter Horowitz et al.), and further in view of Srinivas et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0303406) (hereinafter Srinivas et al.).
Regarding claims 1, 6, & 7, Carley in view of Horowitz discloses an allocation search device comprising a processor (see Carley, Fig 1)
configured to execute an operation comprising:
generating, based on a plurality of event occurrence data, first event occurrence data and second event occurrence data, wherein the first event occurrence data are associated with a predetermined condition as a first main sample, and the second event occurrence data are associated with a condition that is similar to the predetermined condition as a first auxiliary sample (see Carley, column 27, lines 7-16, wherein report on detected deviations from standards. In some cases, this program can also enforce the standard. Mass changes to the repository can be performed when the validation reports show the occurrence of many standards violations that follow a common pattern…; column 14, lines 44-50, wherein in operation 506, the data is divided into divisible portions. Each of the divisible portions of the data is checked in operation 508 to validate that the data meets predetermined criteria, such as that it includes certain content. In operation 510, a message is sent to the user station indicating whether the divisible portions of the data meet the predetermined criteria; and column 23, lines 53-56, wherein samples may include logs, which demonstrate interaction with tools, a sample change request, or a sample request for technical support. Samples can sometimes be created efficiently by taking screen dumps);
creating a plurality of allocation plans of resources associated with an event (see Carley, column 30, lines 46-56, wherein the CIP then plans and manages improvement related activities such as: Define explicit criteria for assigning priority, Consider raising the priority of low-priority opportunities that can be completed quickly, Maintain a mix of high-priority and sure successes to ensure the continued momentum of the Continuous Improvement program, Define the opportunity selection process, Identify the resource allocation process………..);
identifying a first set of allocation plan of the plurality of allocation plans based on determining whether or not each of the plurality of allocation plans satisfies a predetermined evaluation criterion (see Carley, column 30, lines 46-56, wherein the CIP then plans and manages improvement related activities such as: Define explicit criteria for assigning priority, Consider raising the priority of low-priority opportunities that can be completed quickly, Maintain a mix of high-priority and sure successes to ensure the continued momentum of the Continuous Improvement program, Define the opportunity selection process, Identify the resource allocation process………..; column 38, lines 15-35, wherein defining the SLA, with its specific, measurable criteria, is the basis for continuous improvement. The continuous improvement effort may focus on providing the same level of service with fewer resources, or on providing better service. An important part of quality management is ensuring that the Environment Management team understands the key performance indicators for service delivery, that these indicators are monitored, and that all personnel are adequately equipped with the tools and training to fill their responsibilities……….),
wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a case where the first main sample and the first auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation plans (see Carley, column 41, lines 39-67, wherein problem Management is generally associated with the discrepancies that result from the testing process, though it may also be applied to the management of design problems detected during verification or validation steps. Problem Management is a crucial process in the system development life cycle. It ensures that quality software is designed, developed, and tested so that initial benefits defined in the business case are in fact realized. A development environment must have a formally defined problem management process to ensure that this objective is met……);
(analyzing), the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans until the predetermination evaluation criterion is satisfied when the first set of allocation plans do not satisfy the predetermined evaluation criterion in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources (see Carley, column 64, lines 8-45, wherein Metrics that provide a method of measuring (for example, sampling, testing, and determining) whether a process or product meets a given criterion……..Measurement tools are used to measure process quality and product quality. Process quality may include Metrics such as the time it takes to process a change request. Product quality should be measured for all the product expectations the project has set. This measurement process is the inspection part of quality management…….Continuous improvement tools are used to analyze and improve the development processes. Continuous Improvement is a process management technique by which action is taken to modify a process when the measurement or outcomes of that process are unsatisfactory. Process improvement is required whenever the number of defects exceeds the desired level, productivity falls below a desired threshold, or client expectations fail to be met. Once the process has been modified, it is remeasured to see whether the expected gain was actually achieved. Training (854) Training tools provide methods to apply a standardized training approach to a large group of people. Training tools can complement or take the place of traditional instructor led training depending on the type of information that must be communicated. Computer-Based Training (CBT) tools offer the advantage of being able to train personnel directly on the target environment);
updating the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans based on determining whether or not each of the allocation plans satisfies the predetermined evaluation criterion when the second main sample and the second auxiliary sample are applied to each of the plurality of allocation (see Carley, column 3, lines 47-58, wherein update propagation to the backups typically generates a large amount of network traffic, consuming significant network resources. Second, regardless of the precise manner by which updates are propagated, the backups will always lag the primary. Transactions, moreover, are typically executed serially at the backup sites to avoid data inconsistencies resulting from possibly different execution orders at the primary and backup sites. Hence, in high volume applications, backup sites can lag the primary by tens if not hundreds of transactions. This has serious data consistency consequences both during normal processing and, in particular, after failures; and column 48, lines 20-21, wherein migrate to system test based on updated impact analysis and re-lock components).
Carley et al. fails to explicitly disclose generating, based on the latest event occurrence data associated with the most recently occurred event, first future event occurrence data and second future event occurrence data, wherein the first future event occurrence data are associated with the predetermined condition as a second main sample, and wherein the second future event occurrence data are associated with the similar condition as a second auxiliary sample.
Analogous art Horowitz discloses generating, based on the latest event occurrence data associated with the most recently occurred event, first future event occurrence data and second future event occurrence data (see Horowitz, para [0011], wherein predict the future occurrence of the natural event, and to invest funds with the expectation of a return on their investment if their prediction should match the outcome of the natural event. For example, the financial activity may be based on the landfall or land track of a hurricane. Participants engaged in the financial activity submit their prediction as to the point of landfall and/or point along the land track of a future hurricane),
Analogous art Horowitz discloses wherein the first future event occurrence data are associated with the predetermined condition as a second main sample, and wherein the second future event occurrence data are associated with the similar condition as a second auxiliary sample (see Horowitz, para [0132], wherein a financial activity season can be defined to comprise a predetermined number of natural events, which is either concluded or is followed by a subsequent financial activity season upon the occurrence of those predetermined number of natural events; and paras [0006]-[0007] and [0013], wherein provide prediction data and investment funds pertaining to the outcome of the tropical weather event, followed by a method for the participant to obtain an indication from the provider pertaining to a matching outcome of a comparison of the participants' prediction data to tropical weather event data from an external independent information source).
Carley directed to a system for determining in-season crop status in an agricultural crop. Horowitz directed to financial activity based on tropical weather events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carley, regarding the System for Providing a Notification When a Plurality of Users Are Altering Similar Data in a Health Care Solution Environment, to have included generating, based on the latest event occurrence data associated with the most recently occurred event, first future event occurrence data and second future event occurrence data, wherein the first future event occurrence data are associated with the predetermined condition as a second main sample, and wherein the second future event occurrence data are associated with the similar condition as a second auxiliary sample because both inventions teach improving efficiency performance. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Carley et al. fails to explicitly disclose reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans.
Analogous art Srinivas discloses reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources (see Srinivas, paras [0005], [0013], [0052], wherein the resource allocation can be processed utilizing an optimization technique based on a simulated annealing algorithm in order to explore the solution space and determine a best possible operator allocation policy for the new job demand data. Such an approach performs process re-evaluation frequently and automatically provides a recommendation to dynamically reallocate the resources to the process owner; and para [0049], wherein detects a shift in the job demand pattern utilizing a statistical process chart 340 when a change occurs in a business requirement. A current demand pattern can be continuously monitored by the change detection unit 330 to detect subtle shifts in the demand patterns. In general, statistical process control is the application of statistical methods to the monitoring and control of a process to ensure that it operates at its full potential to produce conforming product. Under SPC, a process behaves predictably to produce as much conforming product as possible with the least possible waste. While SPC has been applied most frequently to controlling manufacturing lines, it applies equally well to any process with a measurable output. Key tools in SPC are control charts, a focus on continuous improvement and designed experiments).
Carley directed to a system for determining in-season crop status in an agricultural crop. Srinivas directed to generating an initial resource allocation plan based on past experience with respect to the process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carley, regarding the System for Providing a Notification When a Plurality of Users Are Altering Similar Data in a Health Care Solution Environment, to have included reevaluating, the first set of allocation plans of the plurality of allocation plans in which the predetermination evaluation criterion is an optimal allocation of resources because both inventions teach improving efficiency of allocation performance. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19, Carley in view of Horowitz discloses the allocation search device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes:
a first subset main criterion associated with the first main sample, a first subset auxiliary criterion associated with the first auxiliary sample, a second subset main criterion associated with the second main sample, a second subset auxiliary criterion associated with the second auxiliary sample, the first subset main criterion is distinct from the first subset auxiliary criterion, and the second subset main criterion is distinct from the second subset auxiliary criterion (see Carley, column 14, lines 44-67, wherein in operation 506, the data is divided into divisible portions. Each of the divisible portions of the data is checked in operation 508 to validate that the data meets predetermined criteria, such as that it includes certain content. In operation 510, a message is sent to the user station indicating whether the divisible portions of the data meet the predetermined criteria. The data is loaded in a database in operation 512. The data may include medical records……the divisible portions of the data are loaded into a table before validating that the data meets the predetermined criteria).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 12, and 15-16, Carley in view of Horowitz discloses the allocation search device according to claim 1, wherein
the generating the first event occurrence data and the second event occurrence data further comprises: outputting the first main sample; and outputting the first auxiliary sample (see Carley, column 115, lines 58-67, wherein data can be manipulated for various forms of output. By integrating the operational architecture it is possible to reduce the number of front-end interfaces required. Commonly, the presentation component uses a GUI front-end interface. This component is also responsible for real-time and historical report generation. Event Processing (2004)…. Event processing manipulates the raw data obtained in the event/data generation layer into a more workable form. This layer performs functions such as event filtering); and
wherein the generating the first future event occurrence data and the second future event occurrence data further comprises: outputting the second main sample; and outputting the second auxiliary sample (see Carley, column 115, lines 58-67, wherein data can be manipulated for various forms of output. By integrating the operational architecture it is possible to reduce the number of front-end interfaces required. Commonly, the presentation component uses a GUI front-end interface. This component is also responsible for real-time and historical report generation. Event Processing (2004)…. Event processing manipulates the raw data obtained in the event/data generation layer into a more workable form. This layer performs functions such as event filtering).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 13, 17, and 20, Carley in view of Horowitz discloses the allocation search device according to claim 1, wherein
the first main sample indicates a first pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a first event occurrence frequency, the first event occurrence frequency is obtained in each predetermined area associated with a first data series that depicts actual occurrences under the predetermined condition, and the first auxiliary sample indicates a second pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a second event occurrence frequency, and the second event occurrence frequency is obtained in each predetermined area associated with a second data series that depicts actual occurrences under the similar condition (see Carley, column 88, lines 26-67, column 89, lines 1-67, column 90, lines 1-67, wherein prototypes may also be used to prove architecture concepts (for example, to verify the flow of messages from the client to the host), to ensure that the system is not based on an architecture that is fundamentally flawed. It is important to determine whether to carry forward and extend the prototype, or throw it away after requirements have been determined and perform technical design from scratch. Some prototyping tools offer the possibility of reusing code from the prototype. Although this is a valuable option, it is often available at the cost of slower prototype development. An interesting compromise may be to keep portions of the prototype (for example, user interface components) and rebuild other components from scratch; column 141, lines 59-63, wherein the number of files to be transferred as well as their frequency will impact the capacity required on the system (e.g., network bandwidth) as well as the production schedule. In addition, if the volume of data is significant, data compression may be required; and column 102, lines 38-50, wherein errors which are identified during compilation can be more easily corrected, since the error and the source code generating the error can be viewed simultaneously. Other features include: Dynamic syntax checking, improving productivity by detecting errors as they are made, rather than at compile time. Color coding, which automatically applies different colors to text depending on its type or context (e.g. comments, variables, reserved words etc.), thus making the code more readable. Automatic layout, which indents code depending on its logical level (e.g. loops, conditionals etc.)).
Claims 5, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carley et al. (US Pat No. 6,701,345) (hereinafter Carley et al.), in view of Horowitz et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0155628) (hereinafter Horowitz et al.), in view of Srinivas et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0303406) (hereinafter Srinivas et al.) and further in view of Taghavi et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0278306) (hereinafter Taghavi et al.).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 14, and 18 Carley in view of Horowitz discloses the allocation search device according to claim 1.
Carley et al., Horowitz et al., and Srinivas et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose the first main sample indicates a first pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a first event occurrence probability, the event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs in the predetermined condition, and wherein the first auxiliary sample indicates a second pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a second event occurrence probability, and the second event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs under the similar condition.
Analogous art Taghavi discloses the first main sample indicates a first pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a first event occurrence probability, the event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs in the predetermined condition, and wherein the first auxiliary sample indicates a second pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a second event occurrence probability, and the second event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs under the similar condition (see Taghavi, para [0062], wherein each "simulation period" is a possible future outcome of events. "Year" and "day" define the event occurrence time. "Event ID" indicates which event has happened in a period. "Factor Index" is a key that quantifies how much the loss for this specific event is above or below the mean value; para [0040], wherein data sets to create many different scenarios together with a probability of occurrence which the risk portfolio might expect in the future; and para [0081], wherein graphical representations, which are similar to those using regular PET, to a table format, which can be much more concise than the RPET table. Since there is a pattern to how the events are repeated along periods, it is not necessary to store all the information in the axis. If event 101 happened on period 1, then with the weight information it is also known that event 101 happened on periods 6, 11, and 16, as well, so recording that information would be redundant. Thus, by redefining the occurrence of a "period" based on new, non-redundant information, a more compact representation is achieved: the following table will be enough to represent the information represented by FIG. 5D).
Carley directed to a system for determining in-season crop status in an agricultural crop. Taghavi directed to predicting and managing impacts from catastrophic events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carley, regarding the System for Providing a Notification When a Plurality of Users Are Altering Similar Data in a Health Care Solution Environment, to have included the first main sample indicates a first pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a first event occurrence probability, the event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs in the predetermined condition, and wherein the first auxiliary sample indicates a second pseudo occurrence data series generated according to simulation based on a variable of a second event occurrence probability, and the second event occurrence probability is obtained on the basis of a data series that actually occurs under the similar condition because both inventions teach improving efficiency performance. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/31/2025