DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 17-OCT-2025.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed Application No. CHINA 202010845453.X, filed on 08/20/2020.
Response to Arguments - Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
On pgs. 8-13 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks dated 10/17/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds Claim 2 of Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples relevant.
The applicant argues on pg. 11 that claim 1 recites steps performed by a computer to perform the method.
However, there is nothing in the claim limitations that restricts the steps to be exclusively done on a computer. The abstract and mathematical steps can be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper as well.
The applicant argues on pg. 12 the specification recite beneficial effects achieved by the technical solution of amended claim 1.
However, as per the MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."
Finally, the allowable subject matter comes from the mathematical formula used by the applicant and as pointed above, “an improvement in the abstract idea is not an improvement in technology”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Statutory class – process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes
“3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of data processing and analysis. The claim recites:
S1. performing analysis on the DEM map of the research-targeted basin to obtain a basin surface file of the research-targeted basin; dividing the research-targeted basin into several sub-basins and obtaining a weight of each precipitation station, within each sub-basin respectively; performing analysis on the land use map to obtain an impermeability rate of each sub-basin within the research-targeted basin;
S3. determining a rainfall process of each sub-basin and a flow process of each hydrometric station section within each sub-basin in a runoff process of flood rainfalls;
S4. dividing the research-targeted basin into several parameter-calibrated units, and creating calculation rules for the parameter-calibrated units;
S5. selecting a corresponding objective function for each parameter-calibrated unit respectively, and adopting an optimization algorithm to find a minimum value of the objective function of each parameter-calibrated unit in parallel, gathering the minimum value of the objective function given by each parameter-calibrated unit, and obtaining an optimal parameter of the hydrologic model of the research-targeted basin so as to conduct reservoir regulation and water resource management
Where in S5 specifically includes the following sub steps:
S51. in each parameter-calibrated unit, selecting an objective function for calibrating the hydrologic model parameter, which is a peak error percentage function or a mean-weighted root-mean-square error function according to respective requirement for basin hydrologic forecast,
when required to impose limitations on planning and designing to peak flow, selecting the peak error percentage function as the objective function; when required to reflect the overall situation of the flood process and emphasize the simulation of flood peak flow, selecting the mean-weighted root-mean-square error function as the objective function; the peak error percentage function and the mean-weighted root-mean-square error function being respectively shown in Formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
115
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The analysis, dividing, selecting, adapting and calculating limitations are mental processes of evaluation, judgement and mathematical calculations. By way of example, one can mentally evaluate the most suitable division of the basin, chart it on the map, evaluate the rainfall process, calculate the division lines and weights, judge the most appropriate objective function, and calculate the minimum values for the calibrated parameters.
Additionally, the mathematical equation is an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section B.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional elements are:
S1. collecting locations of precipitation stations and hydrometric stations within a research-targeted basin and their corresponding observed data to obtain a DEM map and a land use map of the research-targeted basin
S2. adding hydrologic units to the basin surface file to generate a basin model, and configuring corresponding calculation methods for each hydrologic unit;
S52. using respective computer for each parameter-calibrated unit, respectively using the optimization algorithm in respective computer to obtain the minimum value of the objective function in parallel, taking the minimum value of each objective function as the optimal parameter calibrated by each parameter-calibrated unit: gathering the optimal parameters calibrated by each parameter-calibrated unit to obtain the optimal parameter of the hydrologic model of the research-targeted basin, and calibrating the distributed hydrologic model parameters based on the optimal parameter of the hydrologic model of the research-targeted basin to reflect runoff and convergence characteristics of each sub-basin in the research-targeted basin, so as to conduct the reservoir regulation and water resource management in the research-targeted basin based on the calibrated distributed hydrologic model parameters.
The collecting is mere data collection.
The generation of a map, configuration of surface files, generation of the simulation model, configuring the calculation and parameter calibration methods to achieve convergence of each sub-basin are mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer using a hydrological simulation program such as a GIS software.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation are mere data gathering and instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer and a general purpose computer. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. This claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites the S11. collecting positional information of precipitation stations and hydrometric stations having observed data within the research-targeted basin and the observed data corresponding to the precipitation stations and the hydrometric stations having observed data, which is mere data collection under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
then converting the observed data into hourly observed data by means of an interpolation method; and obtaining the DEM map and the land use map of the research-targeted basin based on the hourly observed data, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One and mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
S12. performing hydrologic analysis on the DEM map of the research-targeted basin by means of GIS software to obtain the basin surface file within the research-targeted basin, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
S13. dividing the research-targeted basin into several sub-basins by means of a basin division method; the basin division method ensuring that all the hydrometric stations and the reservoirs of the main stream and larger tributaries having measured data within the research-targeted basin are distributed at the outlet position of each sub-basin, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
S14. drawing Thiessen polygons based on the precipitation stations within the research-targeted basin so as to give the influenced precipitation stations of each sub-basin within the research-targeted basin and their respective weights, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
S15. analyzing the land use map within the research-targeted basin by means of GIS software to give the impermeability rate of each sub-basin within the research-targeted basin, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites when dividing the research-targeted basin into sub-basins, taking the hydrometric stations and/or reservoirs as outlet section of the sub-basin, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites S2 specifically includes adding the hydrologic units to the basin surface file to generate the basin model, and configuring the corresponding calculation methods for each hydrologic unit, the hydrologic units including a reservoir unit, a river unit, a sub-basin unit and a confluence unit, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites S31. determining starting and ending time of rainfall runoff simulation according to the runoff process of the research-targeted basin outlet section and the rainfall process of each precipitation station, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
S32. using surface precipitation within each sub-basin to represent the runoff process within each sub-basin, determining the surface precipitation on a basis of multiplication for precipitation data of each precipitation station within the sub-basin and the Thiessen polygon weights of each precipitation station, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
S33. the flow process of each hydrometric station adopting an hourly flow process, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites S41. according to the location of the hydrometric stations with observed data, dividing the research-targeted basin into several parameter-calibrated units, each of which contains at least one sub-basin, and ensuring that the outlet section of each parameter-calibrated unit is a hydrometric station with observed data, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
S42. replacing the outflow process of the sub-basin whose outlet section is a reservoir unit with the actual outflow of the reservoir, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One.
S43. for a first parameter-calibrated unit that has an inflow flowing from a second parameter-calibrated unit making an observed flow data of outlet section flow of the second parameter-calibrated unit as its corresponding outflow data, and making the observed flow data of the outlet section flow of the second parameter-calibrated unit as inflow data of the first parameter-calibrated unit, which is a mental/mathematical process under Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The cited references are deemed the closest prior art made of record to the claimed invention.
Chang et al. (CN111339711A) in view of Liu et al. (A two-level parallelization method for distributed hydrological models) and further in view of Moriasi et al. (Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations).
Moriasi (Page 8, “One of the recommended (ASCE, 1993) model evaluation statistics for the peak flow rate is a simple percent error in peak flow rates (PEP)” and page 2 “Residual variance is the difference between the measured and simulated values, often estimated by the residual mean square or root mean square error (RMSE).” The weighted RMSE is known variant of the RMSE function).
However, this reference or any reference of record or combination of references, do not disclose or suggest, the whole equation as set forth in Claims 1 specifically.
PNG
media_image2.png
54
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
f2 is the mean-weighted root-mean-square error function; NQ is the number of the hydrograph ordinates to be calculated; qo(i) is the measured ith period end flow; qs(i) is the ith period end flow to be calculated; i is the time sequence;
In combination with the remaining features and elements of the claim from which they depend.
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 AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached on 571-272-3652. 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.
/A.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187