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 . Claims 1-19 and 21 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. Applicant, on 07/01/2026, amended claims, cancelled claim 20, and added claim 21. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The amended claims overcome the 103 Rejections and are therefore withdrawn. However, the amended claims recite limitations which invoke 112(a) rejections regarding new 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 1-19 and 21 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.
Claims 11, 10, and 19 recite: “receiving environmental condition data from an environmental monitoring device equipped with a plurality of sensors to monitor different environmental parameters, the plurality of sensors comprising a temperature and humidity sensor, a gas sensor, a multi-parameter water quality sensor, and a soil moisture sensor; and an environmental monitoring device equipped with a plurality of sensors to monitor different environmental parameters, the plurality of sensors comprising a temperature and humidity sensor, a gas sensor, a multi-parameter water quality sensor, and a soil moisture sensor;” The Specification does disclose an environmental monitoring device but does not include the more narrow limitations of a temperature and humidity sensor, a gas sensor, a multi-parameter water quality sensor, and a soil moisture sensor (Specification, [29]; FIGS. 4A and 4B depict an environmental monitoring device according to one or more embodiments described herein) and does not make further recitations regarding any sensors or sensor types.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Applicant further points to MPEP 2106.05(b) with respect to gathering real-time data. Applicant further points to specification asserting that the claims utilize a particular environmental monitoring device and is not “apply it.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of sensors to collect data in real-time is merely performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner further notes the environmental monitoring device is recited at a high level of generality and under the broadest reasonable interpretation could merely include off the shelf sensor devices.
Applicant contends that claim 21, does not recite an abstract idea as the agent as the claim is directed towards agent based modeling and simulations. Further Applicant contends that the elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites a combination of abstract concepts and additional elements. The abstract portions include simulating interactions and storing results (applied to a general purpose computing device (database)). Further the additional elements of generating individual agents; assigning agent attributes and decision-making rules to the individual agents; and storing results in a datastore performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, claim(s) 1-18 and 21 is/are directed to statutory categories. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible signals per se. As the claims recite “one or more computer-readable storage media” and the Original Specification does not provide a clear, deliberate and sufficient definition to exclude ineligible signals per se. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the above mentioned features include signals per se in view of their ordinary and customary meaning. As a result, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 US.C. 101 for being directed to signals per se. Claim 1-18 are directed towards statutory categories. Claim 19 are being considered in the alternate form as a product for purposes of further analysis.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding independent claim(s), (additional elements bolded)
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19, A computer-implemented method for large-scale data modeling using machine learning, the method comprising:/ A computer system comprising: a processor set; one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to cause the processor set to perform operations for large-scale data modeling using machine learning, the operations comprising:/ A computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media to perform operations for large-scale data modeling using machine learning, the operations comprising:
an environmental monitoring device equipped with a plurality of sensors to monitor different environmental parameters, the plurality of sensors comprising a temperature and humidity sensor, a gas sensor, a multi-parameter water quality sensor, and a soil moisture sensor; and a computer system comprising:
receiving migration data from multiple countries;
integrating the migration data into a multi-modular machine learning model by: performing agent-based modeling of the migration data;
performing network analysis on the migration data; and performing labor market analysis on the migration data;
performing web scraping on online resources to extract real-time or near-real- time migration-related information;
updating the multi-modular machine learning model based at least in part on the environmental condition data;
performing multi-group confirmatory factor analysis on the multi-modular machine learning model to identify underlying constructs behind how different countries shape foreign policy and migration quotas; and
generating real-time suggestions for policymakers to optimize migration policies based on the multi-modular machine learning model, the real-time or near-real-time migration-related information, and the environmental condition data.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards receiving migration data, performing a plurality of data analysis steps, identifying underlying constructs, and generating suggestions for policy makers all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards generating suggestions for policy makers to optimize migration policies (See Specification, [04]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least an additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2-9, and 11-19, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the additional elements of generating individual agents; assigning agent attributes and decision-making rules to the individual agents; and storing results in a datastore. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or 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.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-19 and 21, though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “receiving migration data from multiple countries; receiving environmental condition data from an environmental monitoring device equipped with a plurality of sensors to monitor different environmental parameters, the plurality of sensors comprising a temperature and humidity sensor, a gas sensor, a multi-parameter water quality sensor, and a soil moisture sensor; integrating the migration data into a multi-modular machine learning model by: performing agent-based modeling of the migration data; performing network analysis on the migration data; and performing labor market analysis on the migration data; performing web scraping on online resources to extract real-time or near-real-time migration-related information; updating the multi-modular machine learning model based at least in part on the environmental condition data; performing multi-group confirmatory factor analysis on the multi-modular machine learning model to identify underlying constructs behind how different countries shape foreign policy and migration quotas; and generating real-time suggestions for policymakers to optimize migration policies based on the multi-modular machine learning model and model, the real-time or near-real-time migration-related information, and the environmental condition data”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-19 and 21 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
The closest prior arts of record are of as follows:
Known Prior Art (patent)
US 20190251492 A1
COGNITIVE OPTIMIZATION OF WORK PERMIT APPLICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
US-20220405775-A1
METHODS, PROCESSES, AND SYSTEMS TO DEPLOY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)-BASED CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM) SYSTEM USING MODEL-DRIVEN SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE
US-20160129787-A1
Methods, Circuits, Devices, Systems & Associated Computer Executable Code for Driver Decision Support
US-20140310243-A1
Heart beacon cycle
US 20210383229 A1
MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS FOR LOCATION CLASSIFICATION AND METHODS FOR USING SAME
US 20130290200 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF COMPLIANCE TRACKING
US 20190251514 A1
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT OF WORK PERMIT APPROVAL
US 20230121647 A1
MACHINE LEARNING-ENABLED SYSTEM FOR ANALYZING IMMIGRATION PETITIONS
US 20190102371 A1
IMMIGRATION DATA MANAGEMENT
Known Prior Art (NPL)
S. Mo, P. Duan, X. Jin, T. Zheng, Z. Xie and Z. Chen, "Agent-Based social simulation for large-scale immigration problem," 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering (ICCSSE), Beijing, China, 2017
Walsh SD and Tartakovsky E (2021) Personal Value Preferences, Threat-Benefit Appraisal of Immigrants and Levels of Social Contact: Looking Through the Lens of the Stereotype Content Model. Front. Psychol. 12:609219
Faith, V, Marchand, K, Siegal, M., “Relevant Data to Understand Migration in the EU,” Maastricht University, Oct. 2019
Known Prior Art (foreign)
IN202341040708A
SMART FARMING SYSTEM: AN IoT-ENABLED AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND OPTIMIZATION
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights