DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of application on 07-APR-2022.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2023 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.”
Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
the input including hydrology input values corresponding to a desired interval-based analysis associated with at least one mathematical model; and
The claim recites a mathematical model for a desired interval-based analysis. This amounts to a mathematical relationship. The input values are used in the mathematical relationship. The analysis can also be interpreted as an evaluation based on the observed desired interval and input values.
performing the desired interval-based analysis.
Performing the analysis is performing the evaluation or using a mathematical relationship.
Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity has found mere data gathering and post solution activity to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following step is merely gathering the data on elements to be used in the calculation:
receiving an input from a user,
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception has found simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, no meaningful limits are imposed on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation is mere data gathering/post solution activity (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) and a general purpose computer 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.
The claim is ineligible.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the input includes at least one parameter associated with the desired interval-based analysis. The additional parameter associated with the input is only additional mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter includes a jurisdiction associated with the desired interval-based analysis. The additional parameter of a jurisdiction associated with the input is only additional mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter includes an interval of time associated with the desired interval-based analysis. The additional parameter of a time associated with the input is only additional mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter includes the at least one mathematical model. Including a mathematical model is only adding to the abstract idea.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising providing the user with a plurality of selectable mathematical models, wherein the input includes a selection from the user of the at least one mathematical model from the plurality of selectable mathematical models. Presenting multiple models for a user to select from is mere data gathering of the user’s input (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and applying a mathematical model to the abstract idea.
7. The method of claim 5, further comprising providing the user with a customization tool configured to enable the user to create the at least one mathematical model. Providing an input option to the user is mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the desired interval-based analysis comprises performing a hydrology analysis and performing a hydraulic analysis, and wherein the performing of the hydraulic analysis includes auto- populating a plurality of hydraulic parameters with hydrology values retrieved from the hydrology analysis. Performing the hydrology analysis and the hydraulic analysis is evaluation of the abstract idea and solving a mathematical relationship.
The auto-populating of the parameters retrieved from the analysis is post solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing the user with a customization tool configured to enable the user to generate a custom report of the desired interval-based analysis. Generating a custom report is post solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the input includes a desired jurisdiction, and wherein the performing of the desired interval-based analysis comprises generating the custom report in a format consistent with the desired jurisdiction. Generating a custom report based on requirements of the report is post solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patwardhan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0273300 A1 (hereinafter ‘Patwardhan’).
Regarding Claim 1: A method comprising:
Patwardhan teaches receiving an input from a user, ([0052] Patwardhan teaches a graphical representation receive input from a user “…In one embodiment, the modeling system allows a user to create a graphical representation of the different areas of a development site design. The graphical representation shows the water flows between the different areas. The user may also specify the attributes of each area, such as rate of infiltration, runoff coefficient, size, rate of evapotranspiration, and so on…”)
Patwardhan teaches the input including hydrology input values corresponding to a desired interval-based analysis associated with at least one mathematical model; and ([0055] Patwardhan teaches simulating water flow, i.e. hydrology based on a certain interval, i.e. desired interval-based analysis “…The modeling system simulates the water flows by iteratively calculating the outflows and inflows of each area of the development at certain intervals…”
[0075] Patwardhan teaches the modeling system uses an equation, i.e. at least one mathematical model “…The modeling system assumes that surface lateral inflow bypasses interception entirely. The modeling system models interception based on a canopy interception storage capacity parameter. The modeling system defines canopy interception storage capacity by the following equation…”)
Patwardhan teaches performing the desired interval-based analysis. ([0196] Patwardhan “…The modeling system may be based on a series of dynamic simulation objects that represent the functional representation where one can input the time series of land use changes. The use of the development components allows the user to analyze the results of changing land use and respective water quantity and quality during the simulation. The user can specify land use changes that occur in a specified area in a tabular format such as how much land is being developed daily, monthly, and so on. The resulting changes in land disturbance result in changing water quantity and quality that can be simulated…”)
Regarding Claim 2: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 1,
Patwardhan teaches wherein the input includes at least one parameter associated with the desired interval-based analysis. ([0052] Patwardhan teaches a user specifying protection criteria, i.e. at least one parameter “…The modeling system may allow a user to specify various watershed protection criteria, which can include peak water flow, flow volume, and water quality, and so on…”)
Regarding Claim 4: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 2,
Patwardhan teaches wherein the at least one parameter includes an interval of time associated with the desired interval-based analysis. ([0052] Patwardhan teaches a user defined time step, i.e. interval of time “…The rainfall may be specified on a user-defined time step ( e.g., hourly) over a certain period (e.g., one month)…”)
Regarding Claim 5: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 2,
Patwardhan teaches wherein the at least one parameter includes the at least one mathematical model. ([0251] Patwardhan “…Equation box 4603 allows the user to specify the objective function…”)
Regarding Claim 6: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising
Patwardhan teaches providing the user with a plurality of selectable mathematical models, wherein the input includes a selection from the user of the at least one mathematical model from the plurality of selectable mathematical models. (Fig. 28 and [0160] Patwardhan teaches in Fig. 18 the water temperature option is selectable between two different mathematical models, the function of air temperature and energy balance “…The modeling system provides two different algorithms for calculating instream water temperature, as well as the capability to accept an input timeseries of water temperatures. The first algorithm is a function of air temperature as represented by the following equation…”
[0164] Patwardhan “…The second algorithm is a more complex energy balance approach used by HSPF, which allows the model to represent the effects of differing inflow temperatures on the stream. With this algorithm, the modeling system assumes that the heat exchange between the water and the atmosphere drives the temperature and is represented by the following equation…”)
PNG
media_image1.png
250
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 5, further comprising
Patwardhan teaches providing the user with a customization tool configured to enable the user to create the at least one mathematical model. (Fig. 46A and [0251] Patwardhan teaches in Fig. 46A a dialog box, i.e. customization tool to enable the user to specify the mathematical model “…FIGS. 46A-46C are dialog boxes for the optimization process. These dialog boxes are standard dialog boxes provided by an optimization system such as the Extend Evolutionary Optimizer. Dialog box 4601 displays the constraints or limits for the optimization that are used for this example. These constraints can be modified depending on the application. In the example, row 4602 specifies that the number of lots is constrained to between 100 and 141. Equation box 4603 allows the user to specify the objective function. In this example, the objection function is maximum profit. Dialog box 4611 displays various options for controlling the optimization process. Dialog box 4621 displays the maximum profit calculated for each simulation with a different set of parameters. The values of the constrained parameters for each simulation can be viewed by scrolling to the right…”)
PNG
media_image2.png
392
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the desired interval-based analysis comprises
Patwardhan teaches performing a hydrology analysis and performing a hydraulic analysis, and wherein the performing of the hydraulic analysis includes auto-populating a plurality of hydraulic parameters with hydrology values retrieved from the hydrology analysis. ([0064] Patwardhan teaches a get button to retrieve rainfall data, i.e. hydraulic parameters where the data is imported into the display fields, i.e. auto-populating. A calculate button is presented daily potential evapotranspiration amounts, i.e. hydrology and hydraulic analysis “…The rainfall dialog box 311 is used to specify the rainfall amounts for the development. The rainfall amounts may be imported from a spreadsheet that specifies the rainfall amount per period (e.g., hour). The dialog box is used to specify the location and format of the spreadsheet. The get data button 312 is used to retrieve the rainfall data, which is displayed in field 313 and totaled in field 314. In one embodiment, the rainfall amounts are assumed to be the same throughout the development. One skilled in the art will appreciate that different rainfall amounts could be specified for different parts of the development. For example, a residential development on a dry side of a mountain may have a rainfall amount that is different from a residential development on the other side of the mountain indicating a choice of multiple rainfall stations within a development or watershed. The evapotranspiration dialog box 321 specifies attributes of the potential amount of water that leaves the watershed per certain area because of evaporation or transpiration. The dialog box is used to specify evapotranspiration parameters, elevation, latitude, daily minimum and maximum temperatures, and characteristics of the location such as coastal or humid. Optionally, the ET can be estimated from daily temperatures. The calculate button 322 is used to calculate the daily potential evapotranspiration amounts based on these parameters (e.g., using the PenmanMonteith equation), including the daily minimum and maximum temperatures that may be entered into field 323, with the results appearing in field 325. The distribute button 324 may then be used to create values by simulation timestep and display the amounts in field 326. The meteoroligic data dialog box 331 is used to enter air temperature, solar radiation, cloud cover, and windspeed data, which may be required for various water quality algorithms…”)
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Patwardhan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0273300 A1 (hereinafter ‘Patwardhan’) further in view of
El-Sherif et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0228063 A1 (hereinafter ‘El-Sherif’).
Regarding Claim 3: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the at least one parameter
Patwardhan does not appear to explicitly disclose
includes a jurisdiction associated with the desired interval-based analysis.
However, El-Sherif teaches includes a jurisdiction associated with the desired interval-based analysis. ([0067] El-Sherif “…In other embodiments, a regulatory authority for a particular jurisdiction may require changes to all labels for a product within a particular jurisdiction, in which case the scope can be a particular main jurisdiction template 204…”)
Patwardhan and El-Sherif are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, presenting results based on user input.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the input includes at least one parameter associated with the desired interval-based analysis as disclosed by Patwardhan by includes a jurisdiction associated with the desired interval-based analysis as disclosed by El-Sherif.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the qualify control by following a template as discussed in [0053] of El-Sherif “…In step S314, quality control (QC) can be facilitated through a checklist 406 displayed alongside a label 212 as depicted in FIG. 4E. This feature can also apply to master label 208 and other templates and labels. The templated QC check-list can be provided as part of a software package and can be edited from the tools section of the system. All checklist items that have passed or failed the QC can be tracked and available for reporting, so that if the same error repeatedly occurs, the company can address it through training or other action to improve the quality of deliverables. Similar interfaces can be used for facilitating QC of master label 208 and labels 210, 212…”
Regarding Claim 9: Patwardhan teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising
Patwardhan does not appear to explicitly disclose
providing the user with a customization tool configured to enable the user to generate a custom report of the desired interval-based analysis.
However, El-Sherif teaches providing the user with a customization tool configured to enable the user to generate a custom report of the desired interval-based analysis. ([0046] El-Sherif teaches the use of a user-defined template and custom tools for updating requirements “…In step S306, a user-defined revision and approval workflow can be implemented. For example, a company can specify that approvals from particular individuals are required for any new template, updates to a template, a new label, or any changes to a master label 208. Various workflow applications, libraries, and other existing techniques can be incorporated within embodiments of the invention. Exemplary workflow definition languages include XPDL, YAWL, and SCUFL. Exemplary workflow libraries and interfaces include Windows Workflow Foundation (WF), Workflow OSID, and Open WFE or can be provided as custom tools within the system…”)
[0055] El-Sherif teaches changes made to the selected jurisdiction level are associated with a report with the changed labels, i.e. custom report “…In one embodiment, a system for generating product label changes includes a product labeling platform executable on a network enabled computing device, and a database of at least one selectable master label and at least one selectable jurisdiction label associated with a labeled product, where the platform associates at least one selected descriptor from a first pre-defined descriptor set to each change made to a selected master label, and further associates at least one selected descriptor from a second predefined descriptor set to each change made to a selected jurisdiction label, and where the platform further associates a report including the selected descriptors from the first and second pre-defined descriptor sets with the changed label. In one embodiment, the first descriptor set includes pre-defined selectable options from at least one category from the group consisting of Change Rationale, Safety Change, and Change Type. In one embodiment, the pre-defined selectable options under the Change Type category include an urgency level…”)
Patwardhan and El-Sherif are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, presenting results based on user input.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the input includes at least one parameter associated with the desired interval-based analysis as disclosed by Patwardhan by includes a jurisdiction associated with the desired interval-based analysis as disclosed by El-Sherif.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the qualify control by following a template as discussed in [0053] of El-Sherif “…In step S314, quality control (QC) can be facilitated through a checklist 406 displayed alongside a label 212 as depicted in FIG. 4E. This feature can also apply to master label 208 and other templates and labels. The templated QC check-list can be provided as part of a software package and can be edited from the tools section of the system. All checklist items that have passed or failed the QC can be tracked and available for reporting, so that if the same error repeatedly occurs, the company can address it through training or other action to improve the quality of deliverables. Similar interfaces can be used for facilitating QC of master label 208 and labels 210, 212…”
Regarding Claim 10: Patwardhan and El-Sherif teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the input includes
El-Sherif teaches a desired jurisdiction, and wherein the performing of the desired interval-based analysis comprises generating the custom report in a format consistent with the desired jurisdiction. ([0051] El-Sherif teaches mapping elements for the jurisdictional template, i.e. format to the appropriate field, i.e. custom report “…Data can be transferred between labels 208, 210, 212 and templates 202, 204, 206 in a variety of manners. In one embodiment, associations are defined with elements or fields of the master label 208 so that individual fields ( e.g., tradename, API, and the like) in the master label 208 can be mapped directly to an appropriate field defined by the jurisdiction templates 204, 206. In other embodiments and as depicted in FIG. 4D, master label 208 and main product jurisdiction label 210 can be displayed (e.g., side-by-side) in a GUI and the user can select content for transfer between labels and/or templates. For example, the user can select one or more elements for transfer, select particular portions of an element (e.g., through copying and pasting), drag-and-drop particular elements, elect to transfer all data and then edit, and the like. Once the desired data is transferred, the user can then edit the data as needed…”)
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-3PM.
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 at 5712723652. 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.
/JOHN E JOHANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2187