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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the communications filed on 08/15/2025.
Claims 1 – 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 10 is a new claim.
Claim 10 is pending in this application.
Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Examiner’s Response to Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner’s Response to Rejection of claims 1 – 2, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiners Response to Rejection of claims 6 – 8, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner’s Response to Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Applicant has overcome rejection of claims 1 – 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Examiner’s Response to Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 – 9 are cancelled. Applicant has overcome rejection of claims 1 – 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, upon further review a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been established below.
Examiner’s Response to Rejection of claims 1 – 2, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1 – 9 are cancelled. Applicant has overcome rejection of claims 1 – 2, 5, and 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiners Response to Rejection of claims 6 – 8, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1 – 9 are cancelled. Applicant has overcome rejection of claims 6 – 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites:
(a) analyzing quantitative indicators, wherein within the quantitative indicators, a correlation is determined by performing an analysis on a non-parametric Spearman rank between goal pairs;
and synergy is defined by the goal pairs have a positive correlation if the goal pairs having a correlation coefficient greater than 0.5, or have a negative correlation if the goal pairs have a correlation coefficient less than -0.5;
an interaction between goals is analyzed through a panel vector autoregressive model, wherein a formula is as below LnSDGip,t = β0 + β1 * LnSDGa,p,t-1 + β2 * LnSDGb,p,t-1 + β3 * LnTFEp,t-1 + (cp + ep,t) where p represents a province, t represents year;
SDGip,t represents a score of an SDG of an ith of a province p in year t;
SDGa,p,t-1 represents a score of an SDG a in a province p with a lag of one year, SDGb,p,t-1 represents a score of an SDG b in the province p with a lag of one year, TFEp,t-1 represents a fiscal expenditure on transport in the province p with a lag of one year;
cp represents an effect between the provinces, and ep,t represents an error term;
and both the SDG a and the SDG b are goals having a highest number of correlations based on a Spearman rank correlation analysis;
(b) analyzing the qualitative indicators, wherein a seven-score typology is used to describe nature of interactions between the SDGs, analysis is performed from cancellation having a value of -3, counteraction having a value of -2, constraint having a value of -1, and no interaction having a value of 0 during a negative interaction, to advancement having a value of +1, reinforcement having a value of +2, and inseparability having a value of +3 of a positive interaction;
wherein in a cross-impact matrix, a sum of high rows indicates that a goal has a net positive effect on another goal, a goal having the sum of high rows is regarded as a synergistic goal, and a result of the interaction between the goals is analyzed.
The limitations of claim 10, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mathematical concepts, and is directed to mathematical relationships without significantly more. For example, evaluating quantitative indicators, wherein within the quantitative indicators, a correlation is evaluated by performing an analysis on a non-parametric Spearman rank between goal pairs; an interaction between goals is evaluated through a panel vector autoregressive model, wherein a formula is as below LnSDGip,t = β0 + β1 * LnSDGa,p,t-1 + β2 * LnSDGb,p,t-1 + β3 * LnTFEp,t-1 + (cp + ep,t) where p represents a province, t represents year; SDGip,t represents a score of an SDG of an ith of a province p in year t; SDGa,p,t-1 represents a score of an SDG a in a province p with a lag of one year, SDGb,p,t-1 represents a score of an SDG b in the province p with a lag of one year, TFEp,t-1 represents a fiscal expenditure on transport in the province p with a lag of one year; cp represents an effect between the provinces, and ep,t represents an error term; and both the SDG a and the SDG b are goals having a highest number of correlations based on a Spearman rank correlation analysis; (b) evaluating the qualitative indicators, wherein a seven-score typology is used to describe nature of interactions between the SDGs, analysis is performed from cancellation having a value of -3, counteraction having a value of -2, constraint having a value of -1, and no interaction having a value of 0 during a negative interaction, to advancement having a value of +1, reinforcement having a value of +2, and inseparability having a value of +3 of a positive interaction; wherein in a cross-impact matrix, a sum of high rows indicates that a goal has a net positive effect on another goal, a goal having the sum of high rows is regarded as a synergistic goal, and a result of the interaction between the goals is analyzed; and all limitations are directed towards mathematical relationships to evaluate correlations. Accordingly, claim 10 recites mathematical concepts.
Claim 10 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, (a) evaluating quantitative indicators, wherein within the quantitative indicators, a correlation is evaluated by performing an analysis on a non-parametric Spearman rank between goal pairs; and synergy is defined by the goal pairs have a positive correlation if the goal pairs having a correlation coefficient greater than 0.5, or have a negative correlation if the goal pairs have a correlation coefficient less than -0.5; an interaction between goals is analyzed through a panel vector autoregressive model, wherein a formula is as below LnSDGip,t = β0 + β1 * LnSDGa,p,t-1 + β2 * LnSDGb,p,t-1 + β3 * LnTFEp,t-1 + (cp + ep,t); and both the SDG a and the SDG b are goals having a highest number of correlations based on a Spearman rank correlation analysis, where claim 10 recites fundamental economic practices to mitigate risk as we have in Applicant’s Spec. “development costs can be saved to the maximum extent, the development of the sustainable transport can be comprehensively promoted, and a management level of the development of the sustainable transport is improved.” Accordingly, claim 10 recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 10 does not include any additional elements. The recited abstract ideas above are not integrated into a practical application, and thus claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 10 also, as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on 571-272-6737. 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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
11/10/2025
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625