DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on5/29/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 have been amended and claims 5 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 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 PCT Application PCT/JP2022/044633 filed on 12/2/2022. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, and 8 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 1-4 are directed toward a system, claims 6 are directed toward a process, and claims 8 are directed toward a product; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a number of customers prediction device a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, in which, in predicting a number of customers of a store located in a building, the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of explanatory variables including a number of in-building people indicating a number of people existing in the building; acquire a first number of customers predicted value by inputting the explanatory variable including the number of in-building people to a first model that outputs the first number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers when the explanatory variable including the number of in-building people is input among the plurality of explanatory variables; acquire a second number of customers predicted value by inputting the explanatory variable not including the number of in-building people to a second model that outputs the second number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers when the explanatory variable not including the number of in-building people is input among the plurality of explanatory variables; and acquire an integrated number of customers predicted value by inputting the plurality of explanatory variables, the first number of customers predicted value, and the second number of customers predicted value to a third model that outputs the integrated number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers in which the first number of customers predicted value and the second number of customers predicted value are integrated when the plurality of explanatory variables, the first number of customers predicted value, and the second number of customers predicted value are input (Organizing Human Activity), 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 the number of people in a building to predict the number of customers in the building by counting an actual number of people in the building with a first model, predicting a number of people in the building with a second model, then using a third model to integrate the actual number and predicted number of people in the building to determine an integrated number of customers predicted value, which is analyzing how many people are in a store and is a commercial interaction.
Dependent claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the Independent claims additionally recite “a number of customers prediction device a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, the processor is configured to (claim 1)”, “in which a computer executes processing comprising: by a processor (claim 6)”; “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute number of customers prediction processing (claim 8)”, which are additional elements that would not 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 2106.05(f)) and are recited at such a high level of generality. 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 computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract idea and present no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea and 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 2106.05(f)).
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 2106.05). Further, Method; System Independent claims 1, 6, and 8 recite “a number of customers prediction device a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, the processor is configured to (claim 1)”, “in which a computer executes processing comprising: by a processor (claim 6)”; “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to execute number of customers prediction processing (claim 8)”; 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 0014-0022 and Figures 1-2. 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. 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 2-4 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that amount to significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The dependent claims narrow the abstract idea and merely amount 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 2106.05). 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being taught by Fujimura et al. (US 2017/0004404 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 8: Fujimura et al. teach a number of customers prediction device a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory, in which, in predicting a number of customers of a store located in a building, the processor is configured to (See Figure 1 and claim 1):
acquire a plurality of explanatory variables including a number of in-building people indicating a number of people existing in the building (See Figure 3, Figure 4, Paragraph 0028 – “a record of time-sequentially stored actual demand amount”, Paragraph 0090 – “the number of visiting customers”, and Paragraph 0104);
acquire a first number of customers predicted value by inputting the explanatory variable including the number of in-building people to a first model that outputs the first number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers when the explanatory variable including the number of in-building people is input among the plurality of explanatory variables (See Figure 4, Figure 5, Paragraph 0104, Paragraph 0109 – “The demand prediction unit 126 predicts the amount of the demand (the number of visiting customers) by reading the value of the explanatory variable from the information storage unit 122, and inputting the read value of the explanatory variable to the prediction model (step S5)”);
acquire a second number of customers predicted value by inputting the explanatory variable not including the number of in-building people to a second model that outputs the second number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers when the explanatory variable not including the number of in-building people is input among the plurality of explanatory variables (See Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Paragraph 0117, Paragraph 0118 – “The error calculation unit 124 calculates a value by inputting to the prediction model the measurement value of the explanatory variable (A) on each of the 30 days illustrated in FIG. 4 and read from the information storage unit 122, and then treats the calculated value as a prediction value of the number of visiting customers on that day. In accordance with the embodiment, the prediction value of the number of visiting customers is calculated on each of the 30 days (step S13)”, and Paragraph 0119);
and acquire an integrated number of customers predicted value by inputting the plurality of explanatory variables, the first number of customers predicted value, and the second number of customers predicted value to a third model that outputs the integrated number of customers predicted value that is a predicted value of the number of customers in which the first number of customers predicted value and the second number of customers predicted value are integrated when the plurality of explanatory variables, the first number of customers predicted value, and the second number of customers predicted value are input (See Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 16, Paragraph 0119 – “the error calculation unit 124 calculates as the model error a difference between the prediction value on the target day and the measurement value of the number visiting customers on the target day”, Paragraph 0127 – “The explanatory variable acquisition unit 125 receives the model error from the error calculation unit 124 (step S21)”, Paragraphs 0129-0130 – “The display 130 displays the display screen 800 that associates the day on which the model error corresponding to the abnormal value has occurred, the measurement value of the amount of the past demand, the prediction value of the amount of the past demand, and the model error corresponding to the abnormal value”, and Paragraph 0162).
Regarding Claim 2: Fujimura et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Fujimura et al. further teach wherein feature amounts representing the plurality of explanatory variables, the first number of customers predicted value, and the second number of customers predicted value input to the third model are feature amounts selected in advance from a plurality of feature amount candidates so as to reduce a difference between the integrated number of customers predicted value and the actual number of customers (See Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 16, Paragraph 0109, Paragraph 0118, Paragraph 0119 – “the error calculation unit 124 calculates as the model error a difference between the prediction value on the target day and the measurement value of the number visiting customers on the target day”, Paragraph 0127 – “The explanatory variable acquisition unit 125 receives the model error from the error calculation unit 124 (step S21)”, Paragraphs 0129-0130 – “The display 130 displays the display screen 800 that associates the day on which the model error corresponding to the abnormal value has occurred, the measurement value of the amount of the past demand, the prediction value of the amount of the past demand, and the model error corresponding to the abnormal value”, and Paragraph 0162).
Regarding Claim 3: Fujimura et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Fujimura et al. further teach wherein the third model outputs selection information indicating which of the first model and the second model is to be selected, and one of the first model and the second model is selected on a basis of the selection information output from the third model, and the predicted value of the number of customers output from the selected model is output as the integrated number of customers predicted value (See Figure 7, Figure 16, Figure 17, Paragraph 0161 – “The prediction model correction unit 128 determines whether the number of observations of the new explanatory variable (B) is equal to or above a predetermined count (step S43). The predetermined count may be a count fixed in advance, or may be dynamically changing value”, Paragraph 0162 – “determines that the number of observations is equal to or above the predetermined count (yes branch from step S43), the prediction model correction unit 128 updates the prediction model stored on the prediction model memory 121 (step S44)”, and claim 1 – “updating the prediction model in accordance with the acquired new explanatory variable; and newly predicting an amount of a future demand using the updated prediction model”).
Regarding Claim 4: Fujimura et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Fujimura et al. further teach wherein the processor is configured to: use a plurality of models when acquiring the integrated number of customers predicted value; and select a model to be used for each prediction target day according to an acquisition situation of input information input to the plurality of models, and outputs the predicted value of the number of customers output from the selected model as the integrated number of customers predicted value (See Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 16, Figure 17, Paragraph 0119 – “the error calculation unit 124 calculates as the model error a difference between the prediction value on the target day and the measurement value of the number visiting customers on the target day”, Paragraph 0127 – “The explanatory variable acquisition unit 125 receives the model error from the error calculation unit 124 (step S21)”, Paragraph 0161 – “The prediction model correction unit 128 determines whether the number of observations of the new explanatory variable (B) is equal to or above a predetermined count (step S43). The predetermined count may be a count fixed in advance, or may be dynamically changing value”, Paragraph 0162 – “determines that the number of observations is equal to or above the predetermined count (yes branch from step S43), the prediction model correction unit 128 updates the prediction model stored on the prediction model memory 121 (step S44)”, and claim 1 – “updating the prediction model in accordance with the acquired new explanatory variable; and newly predicting an amount of a future demand using the updated prediction model”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
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 9-5 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights