DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2025 has been considered in part by the examiner and placed in the file with a line drawn thru the cited references for which no English-language translation was provided by Applicant. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) requires that the IDS be accompanied by a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language and a copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available. Since these requirements have not been met regarding two of the cited foreign patent documents, those references have not been considered. It appears that an attempt was made by Applicant to submit English-language translations of the abstracts, but the copies of the abstracts submitted are illegible or have been redacted.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejection under 112(b), which is withdrawn, but are not persuasive with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that features of claim 1, particularly the features that have been added by the present amendment, “cannot be performed in the human mind… The human mind cannot receive a satellite communication, identify points using image recognition technology, and generate and transmit the generated travel route to a user device.”
The examiner disagrees. The limitation of claim 1 that Applicant contends cannot practically be performed in the human mind is receiving, via a satellite communication, a satellite image. Another claim 1 limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind is transmitting the point information and the travel route to a user device. Both of these limitations correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Insignificant extra-solution activity includes pre-solution and post-solution activity and can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Receiving the satellite communication is insignificant pre-solution activity and transmitting the point information and travel route is insignificant post-solution activity.
The primary process of claim 1 is analyzing the satellite image to identify points at which the number of persons on the ground is equal to or greater than a predetermined number and then generating a travel route connecting the points. Receiving the satellite communication is merely a data gathering step and transmitting the travel route and point information is merely a result-outputting step. It has been held by the courts that such steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) reasoning that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; also holding that the step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity". See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) holding that an additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
The other steps recited in claim 1 that are not insignificant extra-solution activity can be performed in the human mind. As indicated in the nonfinal Office Action, a human being can view a satellite image displayed on a display device, identify points in the image at which persons are located on the ground, determine the number of persons present on the ground in the image, and determine whether that number is equal to or greater than a predetermined number. A person can also mentally generate a travel route or use a pen and paper and a map to generate the travel route. Aside from these mental processes, all that remains of the claim are the insignificant pre- and post-solution activity steps. For these reasons, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that Tanaka does not teach determining whether the number of people present at a taxi stand is greater than or equal to a predetermined number, but rather teaches a relative comparison to determine whether the number of people present at a taxi stand is “comparatively large” compared to the number of people present at another taxi stand. Based on this reasoning, Applicant argues that Tanaka does not teach determining whether the number of people present at a taxi stand is greater than or equal to a predetermined number.
The examiner disagrees. In Tanaka, the number of people present at each taxi stand is determined and then the relative comparison is made as to whether the number of people at a given taxi stand is greater than or equal to the number of people present at another taxi stand. Upon determining the number of people present at taxi stand 200a, that number becomes a “predetermined number” because it is determined prior to making the relative comparison. Likewise, upon determining the number of people that are present at taxi stand 200b, that number becomes a “predetermined number” because it is determined prior to making the relative comparison. For example, in the scenario where a determination is made that there is one person at taxi stand 200a and four people at taxi stand 200b, one becomes the predetermined number and Tanaka determines that the number of people at taxi stand 200b (4) is greater than the predetermined number (1) and allocates taxis accordingly. For each comparison, the number of people determined to be present at one of the two taxi stands is the predetermined number. It should be noted that claim 1 is silent as to when or how the “predetermined number” is determined or selected. Therefore, the language of claim 1 does not preclude the predetermined number being a number that corresponds to the number of people determined to be present at one of the points.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5, the subject matter of which has been incorporated into claim 1 by the present amendment, Applicant argues that Tanaka “fails to generate a travel route sequentially connecting all of the plurality of points identified based on the acquired satellite image, as recited in claim 1.” Applicant argues that “Tanaka is instead directed to dispatching or distributing taxis to plural taxi stands by considering the stand-by number of people at the taxi stands.” The Applicant’s arguments regarding this limitation are persuasive. Tanaka teaches that the dispatcher sets travel routes for each of the taxis to travel to the respective taxi stands to which they are being allocated, but does not explicitly disclose generating a travel route that connects all of the taxi stands. Therefore, Tanaka is not relied on in the rejection below as teaching this limitation. However, a new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
Applicant also argues that new claims 6 and 7 are allowable over the prior art of record for alleged hypothetical reasons. Rather than address these hypothetical arguments, the new claims are addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
In the following, some of the terms in the claims have been given BRIs in light of the specification. These BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art and examining the claims, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Should Applicant believe that different interpretations are appropriate, Applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly support a different interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11, “information less than” should be changed to --information is less than--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 fall into the statutory class of machine. Nevertheless, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to one of the judicial exceptions of ineligible subject matter, namely, an abstract idea without significantly more.
The USPTO has enumerated groupings of abstract ideas that are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The process recited in claim 1 is a mental process that falls under enumerated grouping 3). The primary process recited in claim 1 can be performed in the human mind. As indicated above, a human being can view a satellite image displayed on a display device or in a photo, identify points in the image at which persons are located on the ground, determine the number of persons present on the ground in the image, and determine whether that number is equal to or greater than a predetermined number. A person can also mentally generate a travel route or use a pen and paper and a map to generate the travel route.
Once it has been determined that the claim under examination recites an abstract idea, the claim must be further analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). The Supreme Court has distinguished between principles themselves, which are not patent eligible, and the integration of those principles into practical applications, which are patent eligible. See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012).
As indicated above in the Response to Arguments section of this Action, the limitations of receiving, via a satellite communication, a satellite image and transmitting the point information and the travel route to a user device constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Insignificant extra-solution activity includes pre-solution and post-solution activity and can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Receiving the satellite communication constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity and transmitting the travel route and point information constitutes insignificant post-solution activity.
As indicated above, the primary process of claim 1 is analyzing the satellite image to identify points at which the number of persons on the ground is equal to or greater than a predetermined number and then generating a travel route connecting the points. Receiving the satellite communication is merely a data gathering step and transmitting the result of the primary process is merely a result-outputting step. It has been held by the courts that such steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) reasoning that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; also holding that the step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity". See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) holding that an additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
As indicated above, the steps of the primary process recited in claim 1 can be performed in the human mind. For all of these reasons, claim 1 fails Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo test and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Because claims 2-7 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, regarding claim 2, acquiring first temperature information indicating a ground surface temperature on the ground from the artificial satellite can be performed in the mind of a person. It should be noted that claim 2 does not recite measuring the ground surface temperature, only that the processor acquires the ground surface temperature from an artificial satellite. A person can acquire such information from an artificial satellite by viewing a display screen on which the information is displayed. The step of transmitting the information to the user device of a specific user is a result-outputting step that constitutes insignificant post-solution activity for the reasons described above with reference to Fig. 1. In addition, this step can be accomplished via, for example, a text message, an email message, a phone call, etc., using well-understood, routine, conventional activities and devices previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. Such activities do not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. For all of these additional reasons, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Additionally, regarding claim 3, it is rejected for reasons similar to the reasons that claim 2 is rejected.
Regarding claim 4, it is also rejected for reasons similar to the reasons that claim 1 is rejected. A person can view a satellite image, identify a number of peers, who are other users carrying out business activity that is the same as or similar to a business activity of the user at the points, based on the satellite image. As indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, the step of transmitting the point information constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 6, the steps of acquiring the first temperature information and the second temperature information constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, mere data gathering steps for the reasons described above in the rejection of claim 1. The steps of transmitting the point information constitute insignificant post-solution activity for the reasons described above in the rejection of claim 1. The primary processes of the claim of identifying the first and second specific points can be performed in the human mind by, for example, a person who views a report that provides ground and air temperatures at the specific points and determines the points based on the reported temperatures. For these additional reasons, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected due to its dependence from claim 6, but it should be noted that the limitations of claim 7 do add any subject matter that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2025/0200108 A1 to McCarson (hereinafter referred to as “McCarson”) in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2023/0351285 A1 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Tanaka”) and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0140777 A1 to Balva (hereinafter referred to as “Balva”).
Regarding claim 1, McCarson discloses an information processing device (Fig. 1, predictive analytics system 100 processes information from various sources to make predictions, paras. [0018]-[0019]), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 1, data warehouse 140, para. [0018]); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 1, data preparation module 130, para. [0018]) and configured to:
receive, via a satellite communication, a satellite image of the ground photographed by an artificial satellite (paras. [0028], [0031], [0032], [0084] discuss acquiring and processing satellite imagery of the ground to make predictions about a variety of different activities and conditions, e.g., farming, fishing, water levels, natural resources, mining and pedestrian activities);
identify point information indicating a plurality of points at which a number of persons present on the ground is equal to or greater than a first predetermined number, the plurality of points being identified using image recognition on the acquired satellite image (para. [0084] discusses using image recognition technology to identify the point information where numbers of persons are located and identifying the number of persons at the points: “[f]or example, uniform spatial quantization of the same satellite image may yield deterministic and quantifiable information about one subject within the image such as number of pedestrians entering or leaving a retail store….”; McCarson does not explicitly disclose that the identified number is greater than or equal to a predetermined number);
generate a travel route sequentially connecting all of the plurality of points identified based on the acquired satellite image (McCarson does not explicitly disclose that the predictive analytics system 100 generates a travel route connecting the plurality of identified points); and
transmit, to a user device, the point information and the generated travel route (para. [0059] and Fig. 2 disclose the point information in output 180 being transmitted by component 280 to user devices of subscribers 290).
As indicated above, McCarson discloses identifying the number of pedestrians at identified points based on the satellite image to the subscriber/user 290 (e.g., the number of pedestrians leaving or entering a particular retail store), but does not explicitly disclose identifying points at which the number of pedestrians is greater than or equal to a predetermined number.
Tanaka, in the same field of endeavor, discloses identifying points where the number of persons flowing out of a facility and entering taxi stand areas is greater than or equal to a predetermined number in order to set up taxi stands and allocate taxis based on the flow of pedestrians out of different exists of the facility (para. [0037]: “[a]s the retention information, information on the number of retained persons in a periphery of the facility 100 (retained headcount) may be used; however, not limited thereto. For example, retention information may include flow-of-persons information that indicates a flow of persons in a periphery of the facility 100, such as a moving speed of persons, information on a congestion degree in a periphery of the facility 100, or the like”; in Tanaka, the retention information can be based on a camera image, para. [0039]; para. [0049] of Tanaka discloses determining whether the number of persons standing by for a taxi at one of the taxi stands that have been set up based on the pedestrian flow is equal to or greater than a predetermined number because it discloses determining whether the number is “comparatively large” or “comparatively small” in order to even out the number of taxis sent to the different taxi stands; the number of people present at each taxi stand is determined and then the relative comparison is made as to whether the number of people at a given taxi stand is greater than or equal to the number of people present at another taxi stand; upon determining the number of people present at taxi stand 200a, that number becomes a “predetermined number” because it is determined prior to making the relative comparison. likewise, upon determining the number of people that are present at taxi stand 200b, that number becomes a “predetermined number” because it is determined prior to making the relative comparison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the predictive analytics system 100 of McCarson to include as part of the leading indicator output 180 provided to the subscriber/user information indicating when the number of pedestrians is equal to or greater than a predetermined number, such as when the number of shoppers observed exiting a retail store is equal to or greater than a predetermined number, i.e., is comparatively large, as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide additional predictive analytics information that can be useful to the user, such as to determine times of day when more shoppers may be present and more employees may be needed. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (modifying the software and/or hardware configuration of data preparation module 130 to compare the number of pedestrians to a threshold value) to yield predictable results.
The combined teachings of McCarson and Tanaka do not explicitly teach that the travel route connects the plurality of points. Balva, in the same field of endeavor, discloses generating a travel route for a ride-share vehicle of a provider that provides rides for passengers that request rides. A single vehicle can serve as a ride-share vehicle that services multiple ride requests that result in the vehicle picking up passengers at multiple points along a route and dropping them off at multiple destinations along the route. The multiple pick-up points and the multiple destination points are connected points along the route, as shown in Fig. 8C of Balva. Generation of the travel route is based at least in part on the number of people present at different pick-up points because the route is based in part on the seating capacity of the vehicle as well as other factors such as whether the riders are willing to ride with riders picked up at other pick-up points and destined for other destination points (paras. [0033], [0049]-[0050], [0054] and [0063], Figs. 5 and 8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the predictive analytics system 100 of McCarson as modified by Tanaka further based on the teachings of Balva to generate a travel route that connects points in McCarson where the number of people identified is greater than a predetermined number, such as where McCarson determines that the number of people exiting multiple retail establishments is greater than or equal to a predetermined number that matches the available capacity of the ride-share vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to reduce wait times for riders and improve ride-share efficiency. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software and/or hardware configuration of system of McCarson to compare the number of pedestrians exiting the retail stores to a predetermined number and generate a travel route for a ride-share vehicle to points where the number of pedestrians present is equal to or greater than a predetermined number).
Regarding claim 4, McCarson discloses that the data preparation module 130 identifies a number of peers, who are other users carrying out business activity that is the same as or similar to a business activity of the user at the points, based on the acquired satellite image (para. [0028] discloses determining, based on satellite imagery, the number and position of particular types of vehicles driven by peers who are carrying out the same business activities, such as “farming vehicles, crop harvesting machines, crop transportation vehicles, lumber harvesting machines, lumber transporting vehicles”); and
transmits, to the user device, the point information indicating, from among the points, the identified number of peers (the information identifying the number and position of the particular types of vehicles driven by peers is included in the leading indicator output 180 of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1 that is transmitted to the user devices of users/subscribers of the system 100, as described in para. [0059]).
McCarson does not explicitly disclose that the leading indicator output 180 identifies the number of peers equal to or less than a predetermined number. Tanaka discloses determining when the number of peers (taxis) allocated to a taxi stand is equal to or less than a predetermined number of taxis needed for the number of persons waiting at the taxi stand. For example, if there are four taxis at the stand and it is determined that five taxis are needed based on the number of people waiting at the stand, one additional taxi is reallocated from other stands by the information processing device 10 so that there are five taxis at the stand (Tanaka, para. [0050]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the predictive analytics system 100 of McCarson to include as part of the leading indicator output 180 provided to the subscriber/user information indicating when the number of peers in the same or similar business is equal to or less than a predetermined number needed as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide additional predictive analytics information that can be useful to the user, such as to predict based on the size of a crop captured in a satellite image when additional crop harvesting vehicles will be needed. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (modifying the software and/or hardware configuration of data preparation module 130 to compare the number of vehicles of peers to a threshold value) to yield predictable results.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarson in view of Tanaka and Balva as applied to claims 1 and 4 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2024/0046143 A1 to Kubendran et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kubendran”).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of McCarson, Tanaka and Balva do not teach acquiring first temperature information indicating a ground surface temperature on the ground based on the satellite image. Kubendran, in the same field of endeavor, discloses obtaining multispectral images using an artificial satellite such as a Sentinel-2 satellite and using the images to monitor ground surface temperature (Kubendran, para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the predictive analytics system 100 of McCarson to include as part of the leading indicator output 180 transmitted to the subscribers/users ground surface temperature at the points where pedestrians are determined to be located. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide additional predictive analytics information that can be useful to the user, such as to predict whether temperature has any effect on the number of shoppers entering a retail store at certain times of the year or certain times of the day. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (modifying or augment the software and/or hardware configuration of data preparation module 130 to process ground surface temperature measurements) to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, McCarson discloses that the data sources 101 that provide data to the data preparation module 130 can include weather-related temperature sensors that sense air temperature (para. [0020]), but McCarson does not explicitly disclose that the sensed air temperature is acquired by a sensor of a vehicle used by the user. However, it was well known before the effective filing date of the present disclosure that taxis and other types of vehicles are commonly equipped with sensors that measure the air temperature outside of the vehicle and display it to the user of the vehicle on a display panel located on the interior of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to further modify the predictive analytics system 100 of McCarson such that the data sources 101 include ground and air temperature sources such that the information processed by the data preparation module 130 and included as part of the leading indicator output 180 includes the ground and air temperature that is transmitted to the user device of the user/subscriber 290. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide additional predictive analytics information that can be useful to the user, such as to predict whether the ground surface temperature and the air temperature have any effect on the number of shoppers entering and/or exiting a retail store at certain times of the year or certain times of day. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods (modifying or augmenting the software and/or hardware configuration of data preparation module 130 to receive and process ground surface temperature measurements and air temperature measurements) to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome any objections and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL JOSEPH SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667