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 .
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 extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 05/16/2025, Applicant, on 08/14/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The device control as described in the claim is broad. The present amendments move prosecution forward under 35 USC § 101 but there are no technical details in the claims about the control of the device. At least paragraph 0065 of the original disclosure includes positively reciting control of a device by changing a lighting color (see Diamond v. Diehr | 450 U.S. 175 (1981)).
In conclusion, the present claims are still reciting abstract idea with no significant additional elements to be considered. The Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner submits that Sakamoto teaches collecting space environment parameters weighting coefficient for each of the environmental factors set for each purpose of the room to calculate an overall evaluation value indexed for each area which is equivalent measuring target index and calculating an overall satisfaction level. Because the overall satisfaction level is calculated based on individual measuring target index, correcting the individual satisfaction level to be higher will automatically change the overall satisfaction level.
Yamanaka teaches “determines whether the total index value QoWL is equal to or greater than a threshold given by the threshold information 14 I (step S 110). If the total index value QoWL is less than the threshold value, the setting environment calculation unit 15 G calculates the spatial environment setting value such that the total index value QoWL is equal to or greater than the threshold value (step S 111). It is obvious that Yamanaka teaches changing an overall index to a value greater than a threshold. Because the independent claims are still broad, the combination of Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka still teaches the elements of the independent claims.
Further, Applicant arguments about “being able to increase an overall satisfaction level while preventing a satisfaction level about some index from being decreased” are not persuasive because there is no claim language that reflects the arguments provided.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-8 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of calculating an individual and a comprehensive level of satisfaction of an area’s environmental settings.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 includes limitations for “calculate, from a plurality of pieces of environmental data acquired by taking each of a plurality of indexes about a space environment as a target index and measuring the target index, an individual satisfaction level, which is a satisfaction level of the target index; and determine a method of controlling a device which influences the space environment causing the individual satisfaction level about each of the calculated plurality of indexes to become higher than a first threshold, and causing the calculated overall satisfaction level to become higher than a second threshold wherein the satisfaction level calculation system controls the device based on the determined method”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Mental Process because an ordinary skilled in the arts can reasonably perform the steps of calculating an individual and a comprehensive level of satisfaction of an area’s environmental settings. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 8 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-7 recite a Mental Process because the claimed elements describe a process for calculating an individual and a comprehensive level of satisfaction of an area’s environmental settings. As a result, claims 2-7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A satisfaction level calculation system comprising: processing circuitry to:”, “a device that influences a space environment; and a satisfaction level calculation device comprising processing circuitry”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 8 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-7 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 8. As a result, claims 2-7 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A satisfaction level calculation device comprising: processing circuitry to:”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 8 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-7 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 8. As a result, claims 2-7 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Sakamoto Yutaka (JP 2021096683 A) hereinafter Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka Yuya (JP 2015222126 A) hereinafter Yamanaka.
Regarding claim 1. Sakamoto teaches A satisfaction level calculation system comprising: a device that influences a space environment; and a satisfaction level calculation device comprising processing circuitry to: calculate, from a plurality of pieces of environmental data acquired by taking each of a plurality of indexes about a space environment as a target index and measuring the target index, an individual satisfaction level, which is a satisfaction level of the target index; [Sakamoto, para. 0020, Sakamoto teaches “The spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13 includes a control unit 15 and a storage unit 16. The control unit 15 includes: an individual evaluation value calculation unit 17 for calculating an individual evaluation value for each environmental factor on the basis of a degree of deviation between a measurement value of a plurality of environmental factors measured in each area and an optimal value for each environmental factor set for each of the persons in the room” wherein comparing plurality of environmental data with optimal values. Wherein the evaluation device 13 is equivalent to the claimed system. Wherein individual evaluation value calculation unit 17 is equivalent to the satisfaction level calculation device] calculate, from the individual satisfaction level about each of the calculated plurality of indexes, an overall satisfaction level, which is an overall satisfaction level about the space environment; [Sakamoto, para. 0020, Sakamoto teaches “a comprehensive evaluation value calculation unit 18 for weighting the individual evaluation values by a weighting coefficient for each of the environmental factors set for each purpose of the room to calculate an overall evaluation value indexed for each area” wherein the overall evaluation value indexed for each area is equivalent to an overall satisfaction level about the space environment]
Sakamoto does not specifically teach, however; Yamanaka teaches and determine a method of controlling a device which influences the space environment causing the individual satisfaction level about each of the calculated plurality of indexes to become higher than a first threshold, and causing the calculated overall satisfaction level to become higher than a second threshold [Yamanaka, para. 0061, Yamanaka teaches “determines whether the total index value QoWL is equal to or greater than a threshold given by the threshold information 14 I (step S 110). If the total index value QoWL is less than the threshold value, the setting environment calculation unit 15 G calculates the spatial environment setting value such that the total index value QoWL is equal to or greater than the threshold value (step S 111).” wherein changing value based on two thresholds]
Sakamoto teaches a space environment analysis evaluation system and Yamanaka teaches air conditioning control device. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing area environmental setting. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing area environmental setting analysis of Sakamoto with threshold application of Yamanaka since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing user comfort and spending.
Further, Sakamoto teaches wherein the satisfaction level calculation system controls the device based on the determined method of controlling the device [Sakamoto, para. 0020, Sakamoto teaches “The spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13 includes a control unit 15 and a storage unit 16.” wherein displaying comprehensive evaluation value. In addition, para. 0028 teaches a setting change unit which is equivalent to the claimed satisfaction level calculation system that controls a device based on calculation from calculation unit 17 (satisfaction level calculation device)].
Regarding claim 2. Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Sakamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays a display screen representing the calculated overall satisfaction level [Sakamoto, para. 0038, Sakamoto teaches “In addition, the spatial distribution diagram output unit 20 of the spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13planarly plots the comprehensive evaluation value (Es) for each purpose of the person in the room, complements the total evaluation values (Es), and creates a spatial distribution diagram (conversion map) (see step S 8 in FIG. 2).This spatial distribution diagram can be output to the display unit 21 of the terminal 14” wherein displaying comprehensive evaluation value].
Regarding claim 3. Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (as above). Further, Sakamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry calculates the individual satisfaction level about each of a plurality of spaces, calculates the overall satisfaction level about each of the plurality of spaces, and displays the overall satisfaction level about each of the plurality of spaces [Sakamoto, para. 0038, Sakamoto teaches “In addition, the spatial distribution diagram output unit 20 of the spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13planarly plots the comprehensive evaluation value (Es) for each purpose of the person in the room, complements the total evaluation values (Es), and creates a spatial distribution diagram (conversion map) (see step S 8 in FIG. 2).This spatial distribution diagram can be output to the display unit 21 of the terminal 14 by an operation from the terminal 14 (see step S 9 in FIG. 2). FIG. 4 illustrates an example in which the overall evaluation value at the time of "intellectual productivity concentration" ("concentration" and display in Table 3) is output in the space distribution diagram in Table 3. As a result, the person in the room can easily grasp the suitable environment area visually and planarly, and can be utilized as an information source for selecting the movement to the optimal environment area according to the preference and the purpose of the person in the room” wherein displaying individual and comprehensive evaluation value].
Regarding claim 4. Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Sakamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines, as the control method, a method in which consumed power is small [Sakamoto, para. 0028, Sakamoto teaches “or may be automatically changed according to the season, the outside air environment (the temperature of the outside air, the relative humidity, etc.)” wherein lowering a temperature level from winter to summer in cold environment results in power saving].
Regarding claim 5. Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Sakamoto teaches wherein the processing circuitry takes each of the plurality of indexes as an evaluation index and to accept an input of a subjective evaluation, which is an evaluation about the evaluation index, and with the accepted subjective evaluation, changes a method of calculating the individual satisfaction level [Sakamoto, para. 0029, Sakamoto teaches “FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a setting input screen 24 in which an optimal value of the environmental factor is set from the smartphone 23 for each target of the person in the room. The setting input screen 24 is provided with a name input unit 25 for the name of the person in the room (for example, the "paddy field drum"), a target input unit26 for the purpose (for example, the "office" indicating the "intellectual productivity concentration" purpose), a setting change unit 27 for the optimum value of each environmental factor (temperature, humidity, illuminance, noise, air feeling (TVOC)), and a transmission button 28 for transmitting each input information to the spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13” wherein transmitting each input information to the spatial environment analysis evaluation device 13 is equivalent to accepting user input and changes a method of calculating the individual satisfaction level (new analysis is done)].
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a device claim while claim 7 is directed to a method which is anticipated by Sakamoto para. 0007.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a device claim while claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer medium which is anticipated by Sakamoto para. 0022.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka and in further view of Shelton IV (WO 2022249097 A2)
Regarding claim 6. Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Sakamoto in view of Yamanaka does not specifically teach, however; Shelton teaches wherein the processing circuitry changes a method of calculating the individual satisfaction level by machine learning [Shelton teaches “For example, the situational awareness system can include a pattern recognition system, or machine learning system (e.g., an artificial neural network), that has been trained on training data to correlate various inputs (e.g., data from database(s) 5122, patient monitoring devices 5124, modular devices 5102, HCP monitoring devices 35510, and/or environment monitoring devices 35512) to corresponding contextual information regarding a surgical procedure”]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing area environmental setting analysis of Sakamoto and threshold application of Yamanaka with the machine learning of Shelton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing user comfort and spending.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 08/14/2025 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights