DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed December 23rd, 2025. Claims 1 and 8-15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 10/23/25, with respect to claims 1 and 8-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 4/28/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the double patenting rejection filed 10/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the provided remarks, Applicant states the following regarding the pending double patenting rejection, “Should this application otherwise be in condition for allowance, Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer at that time.” Examiner asserts as the application does not stand in condition for allowance, Applicant’s statement is moot. The double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 USC 101 filed 10/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 13, regarding Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant argues “independent claim 1 recites an improvement in the technical field of supply chain management”. Citing paragraph [0032] from the as-filed Specification, Applicant argues that claim 1 reflects this improvement at least via the claim elements “generating a local resource flow dataset associated with the second level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the second geographical region by statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset" and "generating a second interactive geospatial map image showing the second geographical region and the set of flow paths by replacing pixels in the first interactive geospatial map image in accordance with the color for the set of flow paths and the width for each flow path in the set of flow paths". Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued limitations are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes as the statistical downscaling of the dataset is a mental evaluation. Additionally, the generation of a second interactive geospatial map image is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of managing relationships and interactions. Therefore, the claims do not recite an improvement to the technical field. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 14-15 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues, citing McRO, “Applicant’s claim 1 uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results (i.e., the second interactive geospatial map image).” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the specific rules of McRO are not analogous to the present invention. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.” The specific rules of animated tasks regarding automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation are not analogous to the generation of geospatial map images. Therefore, the claims do not recite an improvement to the technical field. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues citing MPEP 2106.05(a) and paragraph [0033] of the as-filed Specification, “explains the details of the unconventional technological solution recited in claim 1 that can be implemented to address the technical problem.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the argued limitation of spatial resolution of datasets is not a technical problem. The spatial resolution of the dataset refers to presentation of image details which would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Additionally, the argued technical solution of the claim 1 simply recites “replacing pixels in the first interactive geospatial map image in accordance with the color for the set of flow paths and the width for each flow path in the set of flow paths”. This replacement is recited with a high-level of generality such that the generation of a second interactive geospatial map image is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of managing relationships and interactions. Therefore, the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further on page 16 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues citing MPEP 2106.05(a), “claim 1 recites multiple elements that cover specific functionality for statistically downscaling of the global resource flow dataset”. Applicant argues “claim 1 covers a particular way to achieving the statistical downscaling of the global resource flow dataset”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the cited limitations are directed to the abstract idea. For example, the cited “identifying a regressor” and “determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor” are recited with a high-level of generality such that the identification and determination are evaluations of the human mind. Additionally, the argued “obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Further, the claims merely recite “using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor” to statistically downscale the global resource flow dataset. As stated above, directed to the abstract idea of mental processes as the statistical downscaling of the dataset is a mental evaluation. Therefore, the claims do not recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 8 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and 15 (system) and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture), and claim 15 is directed to a system (i.e. machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims are directed toward dynamic supply chain visualization, the method comprising: causing a user interface to be presented to a user via a user device, the user interface displaying a first interactive geospatial map image showing a first geographical region associated with a first level of geographic granularity; receiving a first user input from the user via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the first interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, the first user input indicating a target resource and a second geographical region associated with a second level of geographic granularity higher than the first level of geographic granularity; obtaining a public global resource flow dataset associated with the first level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the first geographical region; generating a local resource flow dataset associated with the second level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the second geographical region by statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset, wherein statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset comprises: obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor; determining, based on the public global resource flow dataset and the local resource flow dataset, a set of flow paths indicating flow of the target resource into the second geographical region, each flow path in the set of flow paths associated with a set of geospatial coordinates; determining a color for the set of flow paths based on a type of resource associated with the target resource; determining a width for each flow path in the set of flow paths based on a magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths; generating a second interactive geospatial map image showing the second geographical region and the set of flow paths by replacing pixels in the first interactive geospatial map image in accordance with the color for the set of flow paths and the width for each flow path in the set of flow paths; and causing the user interface to display the second interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are visualizing supply chains by generating a local resource flow dataset associated with the second level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the second geographical region; determining, based on the public global resource flow dataset and the local resource flow dataset, a set of flow paths indicating flow of the target resource into the second geographical region; and generating a second interactive geospatial map image showing the second geographical region and the set of flow paths, which is managing relationships and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are visualizing supply chains through interactive geospatial map images, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are visualizing supply chains by generating a local resource flow dataset associated with the second level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the second geographical region by statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset, wherein statistically downscaling the global resource flow dataset comprises: identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor; determining, based on the global resource flow dataset and the local resource flow dataset, a set of flow paths indicating flow of the target resource into the second geographical region; determining a color for the set of flow paths based on a type of resource associated with the target resource; determining a width for each flow path in the set of flow paths based on a magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths; and generating a second interactive geospatial map image showing the second geographical region and the set of flow paths, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgement, and evaluation. Additionally, the generation of a geospatial map could be performed utilizing pen and paper. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are visualizing supply chains through interactive geospatial map images, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 11-12 recite determining a resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region and determining the resiliency level for the target resource has fallen below a threshold level. The determination of resiliency levels recites the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), because the claimed limitations are deriving a resiliency level of a supply chain which is a business activity for mitigating risk. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are deriving a resiliency level of a supply chain, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the determination of the set of flow paths indicating flow of the target resources into the second geographical region; removing flows for the first public global resource flow dataset and the second public resource flow dataset that are not associated with the target resource; merging flows for the first public global resource flow dataset and the second public resource flow dataset; determining a resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region; determining the resiliency level for the target resource has fallen below a threshold level; generating a third interactive geospatial map image; identifying a critical hub associated with a target resource; and identifying a candidate hub. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing interactions as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “causing a user interface to be presented to a user via a user device, the user interface displaying a first interactive geospatial map image showing a first geographical region associated with a first level of geographic granularity; receiving a first user input from the user via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the first interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, the first user input indicating a target resource and a second geographical region associated with a second level of geographic granularity higher than the first level of geographic granularity; obtaining a public global resource flow dataset associated with the first level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the first geographical region; obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; causing the user interface to display the second interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a user interface; a user device; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor; A system for dynamic supply chain visualization, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 additionally recite “obtaining resource transportation records associated with the target resource and specifying transportation modalities used to transport the target resource; and obtaining a transportation network image depicting the transportation modalities”; “obtaining both a first public global resource flow dataset and a second public resource flow dataset”; “providing the magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths as input to an entropy-based economic diversity function”; “providing the resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region to the user”; “receiving an indication that a transportation route associated with the set of flow paths has been disrupted”; “providing an alert to the user via the user device indicating that supply of the target resource for the second geographical region is in critical condition responsive to determining that the resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region has fallen below a threshold”; “causing the user interface to display the third interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device”; “receiving a second user input from the user via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the second interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, the second user input requesting identification of a critical hub associated with the target resource and located within the second geographical region”; “for a candidate hub, providing the magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with at least one flow path in the set of flow paths associated with the candidate hub as input to an entropy-based economic diversity function”; and “causing the user interface to display the third interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “user device” and “user interface” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a user interface; a user device; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor; A system for dynamic supply chain visualization, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-7; non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 8-14; and System claims 15-20 recite “a user interface; a user device; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor; A system for dynamic supply chain visualization, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraph 0040 and Figures 1a, 1b, 3, & 4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “causing a user interface to be presented to a user via a user device, the user interface displaying a first interactive geospatial map image showing a first geographical region associated with a first level of geographic granularity; receiving a first user input from the user via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the first interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, the first user input indicating a target resource and a second geographical region associated with a second level of geographic granularity higher than the first level of geographic granularity; obtaining a public global resource flow dataset associated with the first level of geographic granularity and indicative of flows of the target resource within the first geographical region; obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; causing the user interface to display the second interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 additionally recite “obtaining resource transportation records associated with the target resource and specifying transportation modalities used to transport the target resource; and obtaining a transportation network image depicting the transportation modalities”; “obtaining both a first public global resource flow dataset and a second public resource flow dataset”; “providing the magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with each flow path in the set of flow paths as input to an entropy-based economic diversity function”; “providing the resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region to the user”; “receiving an indication that a transportation route associated with the set of flow paths has been disrupted”; “providing an alert to the user via the user device indicating that supply of the target resource for the second geographical region is in critical condition responsive to determining that the resiliency level for the target resource with respect to the second geographical region has fallen below a threshold”; “causing the user interface to display the third interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device”; “receiving a second user input from the user via the user device based on an interaction between the user and the second interactive geospatial map image via the user interface, the second user input requesting identification of a critical hub associated with the target resource and located within the second geographical region”; “for a candidate hub, providing the magnitude of flow of the target resource into the second geographical region associated with at least one flow path in the set of flow paths associated with the candidate hub as input to an entropy-based economic diversity function”; and “causing the user interface to display the third interactive geospatial map image to the user via the user device” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “user device” and “user interface” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/203,497 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are similar to the claim scope of the instant claims. Instant claims 1-20 are a genus to the species of claims 1-20 of the copending claims. The claims are directed to the same statutory category of invention and are obvious variations of one another. The entire scope of instant claims 1-20 falls within the scope of the copending claims 1-20. Therefore, the instant claims are rendered as being not patentably distinct from copending claims 1-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-20 overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and non-statutory double patenting, as set forth above. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Roelofs et al. (U.S 2016/0217399 A1) discloses a method and system for tracking shipments in global supply chains. However, Roelofs fails to explicitly disclose statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset comprises: obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor.
Siig et al. (U.S 2014/0058775 A1) discloses a method and system for global supply chain intelligence and commodity flow intelligence to track, forecast, and predict supply and demand imbalances at the discrete flow level to aid market participants in making operational trading and investment decisions. However, Siig fails to explicitly disclose statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset comprises: obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor.
McNamara et al. (U.S 2015/0046363 A1) discloses a method and system for supply chain and logistics operation management. However, McNamara fails to explicitly disclose statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset comprises: obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor.
Pai et al. (U.S 2017/0140312 A1) discloses systems and methods for global supply chain disruption management, business partnerships, or any other third-party risk management. However, Pai fails to explicitly disclose statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset comprises: obtaining public metadata associated with the target resource and associated with the second level of geographic granularity; identifying a regressor for the target resource using the public metadata; determining a disaggregation factor based on the regressor; and statistically downscaling the public global resource flow dataset using the disaggregation factor determined based on the regressor.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Monteiro, João, Bruno Martins, and João M. Pires. "A hybrid approach for the spatial disaggregation of socio-economic indicators." International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 5.2 (2018): 189-211.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 9,818,072 B2
Perez et al.
Systems And Methods For Facility Optimization
US 2013/0073473 A1
Heath, Stephan
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERACTIONS USING ONLINE CONSUMER BROWSING BEHAVIOR, BUYING PATTERNS, ADVERTISEMENTS AND AFFILIATE ADVERTISING, FOR PROMOTIONS, ONLINE COUPONS, MOBILE SERVICES, PRODUCTS, GOODS & SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND AUCTIONS, WITH GEOSPATIAL MAPPING TECHNOLOGY
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625