DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 5/12/2026.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 19-22, and 26-28 have been amended.
Claims 2-9 and 11-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
This application claims priority of Foreign Application JP2021-014260 filed on 2/1/2021, of Foreign Application JP2021-014358 filed on 2/1/2021, of Foreign Application JP2021-014359 filed on 2/1/2021, and PCT/JP2022/003796 filed 2/1/2022. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged, but not granted. The Examiner does not see in the priority documents any of the recited limitations in claim 2 “an information processing apparatus comprising an extraction unit, that extracts parameters that have a larger influence on the water balance calculation values as a larger number of predetermined conditions are satisfied, by causing a calculation unit to acquire the water balance calculation values while changing the value of each parameter and thereby performing a sensitivity analysis regarding an influence of each parameter on the water balance calculation values, wherein the output unit outputs identifiers that identify the parameters extracted by the extraction unit”. Applicant will be required to show exact locations of where each of the limitations are in every claim to gain full priority because the Examiner does not see where the limitations are taught/shown in the alleged priority documents. Therefore, Priority is not granted.
Response to Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 112, and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts all rejections have been given to the best of his ability in light of the number of 112 issues and the claims being generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Priority is not granted as Applicant points out a few paragraphs, which do not appear to have support for the claimed limitations specifically pointed out above. The Examiner does not see support in Paragraphs 0090-0093 or 0099-0102. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-9 and 11-27, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner points to the rejection below. Using a general purpose computer to analyze water properties does not improve the computer itself, but rather merely uses the computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea, which does not make the claims eligible (See MPEP 2106). Running calculations on a general purpose computer merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant does not properly address any of the numerous 112 rejections in the arguments. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The Examiner strongly recommends addressing each of the rejections below for clarification purposes because the claims appear to be recited very narrowly, but if it is generic human input the Applicant should recite it as generic human input and not all these random “units”. Specifically, as argued what is the water calculation value? What is the mesh? The claims are indefinite due to lack of clarity and the specification does not mention how at least those two determinations are actually calculated. The Applicant has not properly responded to the 112 rejections below.
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 2-9 and 11-27 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.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 26-27 are directed toward a process, a product, and a system; which are statutory categories of invention. Claims 2-9 and 11-25 are directed towards an apparatus, but the apparatus claims no structural components or hardware and therefore, are directed to Non-statutory subject matter and rejected accordingly.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit configured to acquire, based on values respectively applied to a plurality of parameters related to a state of circulation of water resources in a predetermined area, water balance calculation values regarding a balance of the water resources in the predetermined area, the water balance calculation values indicating a flow rate, an amount of storage, or an amount of change of the water resources in the predetermine area; an output unit configured to output information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, which is based on results of an acquisition of the water balance calculation values respectively corresponding to a plurality of parameter value groups in which values of at least one of the plurality of parameters are different from each other; and a formation unit configured to form information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the calculation unit, by using a distributed water circulation model formed by modeling the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, uses: a plurality of meshes formed by dividing the predetermined area into a grid pattern, each mesh of the plurality of meshes being associated with position information that specifies a position thereof; and a parameter group that includes a plurality of parameters applied to each mesh of the plurality of meshes, and acquires the water balance calculation values regarding the balance of the water resources corresponding to the plurality of meshes, the formation unit forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area, based on the water balance calculation values corresponding to the plurality of meshes acquired by the calculation unit and the position information corresponding to the plurality of meshes, and the output unit outputs information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area formed by the formation unit, wherein for each mesh of the plurality of meshes of the distributed water circulation model, the values of the plurality of parameters are set to simulate the state of circulation of water resources in the model, wherein the water balance calculation values are calculated for each mesh, or calculated for each specific location or for each partial area based on the calculation results for each mesh, wherein the distributed water circulation model is a model in which the state of circulation of water resources is modeled in the predetermined area including a forest, a river, and another type of land, wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to manage water resources effectively in the predetermined area, and wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to perform an uncertainty evaluation with high accuracy to acquire the water balance quantified using the distributed water circulation model for a target area (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing circulation states and water balance parameters in a specific area to determine if the values match by analyzing specific positions using a distributed water circulation model, which is managing how humans interact with handling water issues for commercial purposes (e.g. water distribution). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing circulation states and water balance parameters in a specific area to determine if the values match by analyzing specific positions using a distributed water circulation model, which can be done in the human mind. The claims are merely analyzing water data and worker data to make determinations for a human to interpret all using a general purpose computer.
Dependent claims 3-10 and 12-25 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the Independent claims additionally recite “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit configured to acquire; an output unit configured to output; and a formation unit configured to form; wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 11)”; “An information processing apparatus comprising: an extraction unit configured to extract; causing a calculation unit to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to; wherein the calculation unit; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 2)”; “by an extraction unit; by causing a calculation unit to; by an output unit; by the extraction unit; herein the calculation unit (Claim 26)”; “using an extraction unit, a calculation unit and an output unit; by an extraction unit; by causing a calculation unit to; by an output unit; wherein the calculation unit (Claim 27)”, which are additional elements that 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 MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. 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 computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 3-10 and 12-25 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 4, 9, 16, 19, and 22 additionally recite “a parameter setting unit (Claim 4)”; “an after-change calculation unit (Claim 4)”; “an acceptance unit (Claim 9)”; “a geographic information acquisition unit (Claim 16)”; “a sample creation unit (Claim 19)”; “an uncertainty evaluation unit (Claim 19)”; “a formation unit (Claim 22)” which are additional elements that do not 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 MPEP 2106).
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). Further, Method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 11, and 26-27 recite “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit configured to acquire; an output unit configured to output; and a formation unit configured to form; wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 11)”; “An information processing apparatus comprising: an extraction unit configured to extract; causing a calculation unit to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to; wherein the calculation unit; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 2)”; “by an extraction unit; by causing a calculation unit to; by an output unit; by the extraction unit; herein the calculation unit (Claim 26)”; “using an extraction unit, a calculation unit and an output unit; by an extraction unit; by causing a calculation unit to; by an output unit; wherein the calculation unit (Claim 27)”; 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 Paragraphs 0082-0090 and Figures 3. 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. 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 3-10 and 12-25 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 4, 9, 16, 19, and 22 additionally recite “a parameter setting unit (Claim 4)”; “an after-change calculation unit (Claim 4)”; “an acceptance unit (Claim 9)”; “a geographic information acquisition unit (Claim 16)”; “a sample creation unit (Claim 19)”; “an uncertainty evaluation unit (Claim 19)”; “a formation unit (Claim 22)” 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). 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.
Claims 2-9 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-9 and 23-25 are directed toward an “apparatus” (a machine under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim limitations however do not recite any structural elements of the device. The system elements in claims 2-9 and 23-25 include “An information processing apparatus comprising: an extraction unit configured to extract; causing a calculation unit to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to; wherein the calculation unit; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 2)”; “a parameter setting unit (Claim 4)”; “an after-change calculation unit (Claim 4)”; “an acceptance unit (Claim 9)” (which may be entirely software). Thus each of the limitations can be interpreted as computer programs (Software per se). Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process or physical structural elements of the apparatus and the examiner therefore will treat a claim for a computer program, without the structures needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 11-22 are directed toward an “apparatus” (a machine under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim limitations however do not recite any structural elements of the device. The system elements in claims 11-22 include “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit configured to acquire; an output unit configured to output; and a formation unit configured to form; wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to; wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to (Claim 11)”; “a geographic information acquisition unit (Claim 16)”; “a sample creation unit (Claim 19)”; “an uncertainty evaluation unit (Claim 19)”; “a formation unit (Claim 22)” (which may be entirely software). Thus each of the limitations can be interpreted as computer programs (Software per se). Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process or physical structural elements of the apparatus and the examiner therefore will treat a claim for a computer program, without the structures needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-9 and 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 23-27: Claims 2 and 26-27 recite “that extracts parameters that have a larger influence on the water balance calculation values as a larger number of predetermined conditions are satisfied, by causing the calculation unit to acquire the water balance calculation values while changing the value of each parameter and thereby performing a sensitivity analysis regarding an influence of each parameter on the water balance calculation values, wherein the output unit outputs identifiers that identify the parameters extracted by the extraction unit”. The Applicant merely provides a black box for making this determination in the form of an extraction unit. There are no details on how the identifiers and high impact parameters are actually determined. Therefore, the claims are rejected for lack of written description.
Regarding Claims 4-6: Claims 4 recite “an after-change calculation value related to the balance of the water resources, after changing the value of the parameter set by the parameter setting unit, and extracts the high-impact parameters based on the after-change calculation value of each parameter calculated by the after-change calculation unit”. The Applicant merely provides a black box for making this determination in the form of an extraction unit. There are no details on how the after change calculation values are actually determined. Therefore the claims are rejected for lack of written description.
Regarding Claims 11-22: Claims 11-22 recite “a calculation unit that acquires, based on values respectively applied to two or more parameters related to a state of circulation of water resources in a predetermined area, water balance calculation values regarding a balance of the water resources in the predetermined area”. The Applicant merely provides a black box for making this determination in the form of a calculation unit. There are no details on how the water calculation values are actually determined. Therefore the claims are rejected for lack of written description.
Regarding Claims 11-22: Claims 11 recite “forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the acquisition unit is configured to, by using a distributed water circulation model formed by modeling the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, using: a large number of meshes formed by dividing the predetermined area into a grid pattern, each mesh being associated with position information that specifies a position thereof; and a parameter group that includes two or more parameters applied to each mesh, acquire the water balance calculation values regarding the balance of the water resources corresponding to the meshes, the formation unit forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area, based on the water balance calculation values corresponding to the meshes acquired by the calculation unit and the position information corresponding to the meshes, and the output unit outputs information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area formed by the formation unit”. The Applicant merely provides a black box for making this determination in the form of an extraction unit. There are no details on how the information is actually determined, no details on how the meshes are formed and created, or the water balance calculation values are determined. Therefore the claims are rejected for lack of written description.
Regarding Claims 19-22: Claims 19 recite “calculate the water balance calculation values, using a distributed water circulation model”. The Applicant merely provides a black box for making this determination in the form of an extraction unit. There are no details on how the water balance calculation values are actually determined. Therefore the claims are rejected for lack of written description.
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.
Claims 2-9 and 11-27 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.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 11-27: The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 23-27: Claims 2 and 26-27 recite “that extracts parameters that have a larger influence on the water balance calculation values as a larger number of predetermined conditions are satisfied, by causing the calculation unit to acquire the water balance calculation values while changing the value of each parameter and thereby performing a sensitivity analysis regarding an influence of each parameter on the water balance calculation values, wherein the output unit outputs identifiers that identify the parameters extracted by the extraction unit”. It is unclear how the identifiers and parameters are actually determined. For example, what is a sensitivity analysis? Therefore the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 4-6: Claims 4 recite “an after-change calculation value related to the balance of the water resources, after changing the value of the parameter set by the parameter setting unit, and extracts the parameters based on the after-change calculation value of each parameter calculated by the after-change calculation unit”. It is unclear how the after change calculation values are actually determined. Is this just a modification of an input value by a human? Therefore the claims are rejected for Indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 11-22: Claims 11-22 recite “acquires, based on values respectively applied to two or more parameters related to a state of circulation of water resources in a predetermined area, water balance calculation values regarding a balance of the water resources in the predetermined area”. It is unclear how the water calculation values are actually determined. Are these just human input values? Therefore the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 11-22: Claims 11 recite “forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the acquisition unit is configured to, by using a distributed water circulation model formed by modeling the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, using: a large number of meshes formed by dividing the predetermined area into a grid pattern, each mesh being associated with position information that specifies a position thereof; and a parameter group that includes two or more parameters applied to each mesh, acquire the water balance calculation values regarding the balance of the water resources corresponding to the meshes, the formation unit forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area, based on the water balance calculation values corresponding to the meshes acquired by the calculation unit and the position information corresponding to the meshes, and the output unit outputs information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area formed by the formation unit”. It is unclear how the meshes are formed and created, or the water balance calculation values are determined. Are the meshes created based off generic human user input into a computer? Therefore the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding Claims 19-22: Claims 19 recite “calculate the water balance calculation values, using a distributed water circulation model”. It is unclear how the water balance calculation values are actually determined using the model. What is the model? Therefore the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites “an average value of the river discharge at each location along the predetermined area”. It is unclear what this is. Is this a value? Is this a collected piece of data or calculated? The confusion to the Examiner renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 2-9 and 11-27 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 for the reasons set forth above. Claims 2-9 and 11-27 disclose analyzing circulation states and water balance parameters in a specific area to determine if the values match with specifics on how a mesh graph is formed and modeling is used to generate sampling determinations.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Yano et al. (WO 2015/115675 A1) – which discloses assessment methods of potential impacts on freshwater availability and program of the same.
Kristensen et al. (US 2022/0335185 A1) – which discloses oil and gas field analysis on flows and production.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 2-9 and 11-27, such as analyzing circulation states and water balance parameters in a specific area to determine if the values match with specifics on how a mesh graph is formed and modeling is used to generate sampling determinations. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit configured to acquire, based on values respectively applied to a plurality of parameters related to a state of circulation of water resources in a predetermined area, water balance calculation values regarding a balance of the water resources in the predetermined area, the water balance calculation values indicating a flow rate, an amount of storage, or an amount of change of the water resources in the predetermine area; an output unit configured to output information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, which is based on results of an acquisition of the water balance calculation values respectively corresponding to a plurality of parameter value groups in which values of at least one of the plurality of parameters are different from each other; and a formation unit configured to form information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the calculation unit, by using a distributed water circulation model formed by modeling the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, uses: a plurality of meshes formed by dividing the predetermined area into a grid pattern, each mesh of the plurality of meshes being associated with position information that specifies a position thereof; and a parameter group that includes a plurality of parameters applied to each mesh of the plurality of meshes, and acquires the water balance calculation values regarding the balance of the water resources corresponding to the plurality of meshes, the formation unit forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area, based on the water balance calculation values corresponding to the plurality of meshes acquired by the calculation unit and the position information corresponding to the plurality of meshes, and the output unit outputs information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources at each location in the predetermined area formed by the formation unit, wherein for each mesh of the plurality of meshes of the distributed water circulation model, the values of the plurality of parameters are set to simulate the state of circulation of water resources in the model, wherein the water balance calculation values are calculated for each mesh, or calculated for each specific location or for each partial area based on the calculation results for each mesh, wherein the distributed water circulation model is a model in which the state of circulation of water resources is modeled in the predetermined area including a forest, a river, and another type of land, wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to manage water resources effectively in the predetermined area, and wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to perform an uncertainty evaluation with high accuracy to acquire the water balance quantified using the distributed water circulation model for a target area (as required by claims 2-9 and 11-27)”, thus rendering claims 2-9 and 11-27 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights