DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 10/14/2025.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 15-16, and 19-27 have been amended and claims 1 and 28 have been cancelled.
Claims 2-27 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, where not strike through by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103, 35 USC 112, and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant does not address any of the numerous 112 rejections in the arguments. The Examiner maintains the rejections not corrected with amendments because the Applicant did not address them. 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”.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-27, 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). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 2-27, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection. The Examiners rejection is made to the best of his ability in light of the numerous 112 rejections, which were not addressed by Applicant. The Examiner recommends amending claims 2 and 26-27 to recite all the limitations of claim 11 to overcome the rejection.
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 2-27 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 2-27 are directed toward a process, a product, and a system; which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward an information processing apparatus comprising: 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; an output unit that outputs 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 two or more parameter value groups in which values of at least one of the parameters are different from each other; and a formation unit that forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the calculation 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 plurality 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, and wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to manage water resources effectively in the predetermined 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.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “acquires; outputs” 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 “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit that; an output unit that; a formation unit; an extraction unit; a parameter setting unit; an after-change calculation unit; an acceptance unit; a formation unit; a geographic information acquisition unit; a sample creation unit; a sample calculation unit; an uncertainty evaluation unit” 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 MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 3-10 and 12-25 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 3-10 and 12-25 additionally recite “a parameter setting unit; an after-change calculation unit; an acceptance unit; a formation unit; a geographic information acquisition unit; a sample creation unit; a sample calculation unit; an uncertainty evaluation unit” 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 MPEP 2106).
The claimed “an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit that; an output unit that; a formation unit; an extraction unit; a parameter setting unit; an after-change calculation unit; an acceptance unit; a formation unit; a geographic information acquisition unit; a sample creation unit; a sample calculation unit; an uncertainty evaluation unit” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) and at such a high level of generality 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 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 claims 2-27 recite an information processing apparatus comprising: a calculation unit that; an output unit that; a formation unit; an extraction unit; a parameter setting unit; an after-change calculation unit; an acceptance unit; a formation unit; a geographic information acquisition unit; a sample creation unit; a sample calculation unit; an uncertainty evaluation unit; 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. Also, the above “acquires; outputs” 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) 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 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 3-10 and 12-25 additionally recite “a parameter setting unit; an after-change calculation unit; an acceptance unit; a formation unit; a geographic information acquisition unit; a sample creation unit; a sample calculation unit; an uncertainty evaluation unit” 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.
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 2-27 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 2-10 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 10: Claims 10 recite “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 using the model. 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 2-27 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 2-27: 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 2-10 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 10: Claims 10 recite “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 does the model actually entail? 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2-10 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (WO 2015/115675 A1) in view of Kristensen et al. (US 2022/0335185 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 26-27: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Yano et al. further teach:
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 (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0019-0023, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, Paragraph 0049, and claim 1);
and wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to manage water resources effectively with the identifiers
Yano et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the identifiers are codes that are associated with the parameters or names of the parameters. However, Kristensen et al. further teach wherein the identifiers are codes that are associated with the parameters or names of the parameters (See Paragraph 0089, Paragraph 0098, Paragraphs 0112-0113, and Paragraph 0210)
The teachings of Yano et al. and Kristensen et al. are related because both are analyzing fluid resource parameters to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Yano et al. to incorporate the codes of Kristensen et al. in order to better analyze the fluid properties for more optimized solutions based on human user input.
Regarding Claim 3: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 2. Yano et al. further teach wherein the extraction unit ranks the extracted high-impact parameters in descending order of influence of the extracted high-impact parameters on the water balance calculation values, and the output unit outputs the identifiers according to results of the ranking (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0019-0023, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 2. Yano et al. further teach wherein the extraction unit includes: a parameter setting unit that acquires observation data regarding one or more parameters and the balance of the water resources, and sets the values of the parameters corresponding to the acquired observation data and the values of the other parameters so as to correspond to the observation data regarding the balance of the water resources acquired by the water balance calculation values; and an after-change calculation unit that acquires, for each parameter, 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, wherein the after-change calculation value is acquired by adding or subtracting a preset amount of change to or from the set value of each parameter (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0006, Paragraph 0010, Paragraph 0019, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 4. Yano et al. further teach wherein the after-change calculation unit acquires the after-change calculation values by changing the value of each parameter by a predetermined rate, and for each parameter, the extraction unit extracts the parameter as a high-impact parameter when a difference or a ratio between a water balance calculation value acquired using the value set by the parameter setting unit (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0019-0023, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Yano et al. do not specifically disclose and the after change calculation value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value. However, Kristensen et al. further teach and the after change calculation value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (See Paragraph 0088 and Paragraph 0223).
The teachings of Yano et al. and Kristensen et al. are related because both are analyzing fluid resource parameters to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Yano et al. to incorporate the threshold of Kristensen et al. in order to better analyze the fluid properties for more optimized solutions.
Regarding Claim 6: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 4. Yano et al. further teach wherein, for each parameter, the after-change calculation unit acquires two after-change calculation values by changing the value of the parameter to a maximum value and a minimum value of a possible range thereof, and for each parameter, the extraction unit extracts the parameter as a high-impact parameter when a difference or a ratio between the two after-change calculation values is “high” (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0019-0023, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Yano et al. do not specifically disclose equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value. However, Kristensen et al. further teach and the after change calculation value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (See Paragraph 0088 and Paragraph 0223).
The teachings of Yano et al. and Kristensen et al. are related because both are analyzing fluid resource parameters to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Yano et al. to incorporate the threshold of Kristensen et al. in order to better analyze the fluid properties for more optimized solutions.
Regarding Claim 7: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 2. Yano et al. further teach wherein the extraction unit extracts the high-impact parameters from parameters determined as having a property of being changeable in response to worker activities, of the two or more parameters (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0019-0023, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 7. Yano et al. further teach wherein the extraction unit is configured to determine parameters related to elements located above a point at a predetermined depth from a ground surface as parameters that have a property of being changeable in response to the worker activities (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraph 0014, Paragraph 0018, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, Paragraphs 0047-0050, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 7. Yano et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Kristensen et al. further teach an acceptance unit that accepts, in association with each parameter, a specifying operation that specifies whether or not the parameter can be a target of the worker activities in the predetermined area, from a user, wherein the extraction unit is configured to determine parameters specified through a specifying operation accepted by the acceptance unit, as parameters that can be the target of the worker activities, as parameters that have a property of being changeable in response to the worker activities (See Paragraph 0101, Paragraphs 0193-0194, Paragraph 0202, and Paragraph 0223).
The teachings of Yano et al. and Kristensen et al. are related because both are analyzing fluid resource parameters to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Yano et al. to incorporate the recommendations of Kristensen et al. in order to better analyze the fluid properties for more optimized solutions.
Regarding Claim 10: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 2. Yano et al. further teach wherein the calculation unit acquires the water balance calculation values, using a distributed water model that is formed using a parameter group that includes the two or more parameters by modeling the state of the water resources in the predetermined area (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Yano et al. do not specifically disclose a state of circulation. However, Kristensen et al. further teach a state of circulation (See Paragraph 0083, Paragraph 0139, and Paragraph 0209).
The teachings of Yano et al. and Kristensen et al. are related because both are analyzing fluid resource parameters to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water analysis system of Yano et al. to incorporate the circulation of Kristensen et al. in order to better analyze the fluid properties for more optimized solutions.
Regarding Claim 23: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Yano et al. further teach wherein the water balance calculation values relate to a flow rate or an amount of storage of the water resources in the predetermined area, or an amount of change in each (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0006, Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 24: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Yano et al. further teach wherein the water balance calculation values relate to a flow rate or an amount of storage of groundwater in the predetermined area, or the amount of change in each (See Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Regarding Claim 25: Yano et al. in view of Kristensen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Yano et al. further teach wherein the water balance calculation values relate to an amount of recharge of groundwater in the predetermined area (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0006, Paragraph 0010, Paragraphs 0033-0034, Paragraph 0037, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0045, and claim 1).
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 11-22 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 11-22 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 11-22, 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 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; an output unit that outputs 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 two or more parameter value groups in which values of at least one of the parameters are different from each other; and a formation unit that forms information regarding the state of circulation of the water resources in the predetermined area, wherein the calculation 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 plurality 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, and wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to manage water resources effectively in the predetermined area (as required by independent claims 11-22)”, thus rendering claims 11-22 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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.
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