DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-7 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 25-NOV-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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
On pgs. 8-11 of the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks dated 11/25/2025 (hereinafter ‘Remarks’), Applicant argues claims 1-7 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On pg. 8 of the Remarks, Applicant recites the claim language with the amended language of the processor and memory.
On pg. 8 continuing onto pg. 9, Applicant argues the now recited processor and memory are not part of a general-purpose computer, a “specific machine”. Examiner respectfully disagrees the computer is more than a general-purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. The abstract idea is cited as a mathematical equation. All elements except the processor and memory are analyzed under Step 2A Prong 1 as an abstract idea. The additional element of the computer does not amount to a practical application.
Continuing on pg. 9 of the Remarks, Applicant discusses the problem in relation to the prior art that the invention is solving. The comparison is to the natural conditions of the channel and the laboratory conditions. Continuing onto pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant discusses the model solves the problem by predicting the velocity field of the vegetated region and the bare channel. Examiner is interpreting this in view of Figs. 1 and 2 denoting the bare channel and the vegetated region. Examiner respectfully disagrees the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 or significantly more under Step 2B. When viewing the equations and Figs. 1 and 2, these are mathematical calculations. Although there are several equations and the channel velocities may be complex, these still only amount to mathematical equations. There is no discussion of how the data is collected or how the data is used. Even if the claim recited a simple data collection step, this would only amount to mere data gathering. Examiner fails to find any significant data collection or application or the model in the specification.
Rejection under 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 1-7 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.”
(1) with a center of an upstream boundary of an emergent vegetation patch as an origin, dividing the river channel into a vegetated region and a bare channel in a direction perpendicular to a streamwise direction, namely, an x direction, wherein the vegetated region is: 1>y/b>−1, a central area of the vegetated region is: b−δp>y>δp−b, the bare channel is: B/2≥y≥b and −b≥y≥−B/2, a side edge of the emergent vegetation patch is: y=b, b denotes half width of the emergent vegetation patch, and B denotes half width of a river channel; and δp denotes a penetration distance that lateral vortexes penetrate into a patch through its side edge, and δm denotes a width of a mixed layer;
The above recites an explicit mathematical formula. Performing the division of the regions is completed using the mathematical formula.
(2) determining a model for predicting flow velocity distribution of a two-dimensional flow velocity field in the vegetated region and the bare channel:
wherein a model for the vegetated region is:
PNG
media_image1.png
36
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a model for the bare channel is:
PNG
media_image2.png
40
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Ud (1) denotes a laterally distributed flow velocity in a streamwise direction at different locations in the vegetated region, Ud (2) denotes a laterally distributed flow velocity in a streamwise direction at different locations in the bare channel, Uveg denotes a mean flow velocity over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the vegetated region, Uy=b denotes a flow velocity at the side edge of the emergent vegetation patch, Ubare denotes a mean flow velocity over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the bare channel, Ld (veg) and Ld (bare) denote exponential decay lengths of the vegetated region and the bare channel, respectively, wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
36
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the mean flow velocity Uveg over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the vegetated region can be determined by a model for predicting longitudinal flow velocity distribution in the river channel with an emergent vegetation patch; and
The above recites an explicit mathematical formula. The prediction of the longitudinal flow velocity distribution is accomplished by using the mathematical formulas.
(3) determining the flow velocity Uy=b at the side edge of the emergent vegetation patch and the mean flow velocity Ubare over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the bare channel:
the flow velocity Uy=b at the side edge of the emergent vegetation patch and the mean flow velocity Ubare over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the bare channel are determined according to the following two boundary conditions:
a predicted flow velocity satisfies a flow continuity equation at the side edge of the emergent vegetation patch:
PNG
media_image4.png
36
84
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
a predicted flow velocity in the vegetated region and the bare channel satisfies a flow continuity equation:
PNG
media_image5.png
32
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
wherein Ud(1) and Ud(2) denote laterally distributed flow velocities in the vegetated region and the bare channel obtained according to the prediction model in step (2), respectively, U0 denotes a mean flow velocity at an upper stream of the river channel x<−Lu, and Lu denotes a flow deflection distance at an upper stream of the emergent vegetation patch; and
once the flow velocity Uy=b at the edge of the emergent vegetation patch and the mean flow velocity Ubare over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the bare channel are determined, the prediction model in step (2) can be used for predicting flow velocity distribution of the two-dimensional flow velocity field in the vegetated region and the bare channel.
The above recites an explicit mathematical formula. Determining the flow velocity profile is accomplished by using the mathematical formula.
Therefore, the claim recites mathematical concepts.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
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.
which is implemented in a system comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions for the processor to perform the following steps:
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 a general purpose computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration.
The claim is ineligible.
2. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation patch according to claim 1, wherein in step (2), the mean flow velocity over different transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the vegetated region is determined according to the following prediction model: wherein the model for the vegetated region is:
PNG
media_image6.png
34
256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; wherein Uveg denotes a mean flow velocity over transverse profiles in a streamwise direction of the vegetated region, Uveg(f) denotes a mean flow velocity of a fully developed region x>LI within the emergent vegetation patch, Uveg(0) denotes a flow velocity at an upstream boundary x=0 of the vegetated region, LI denotes a flow deflection distance within the emergent vegetation patch, Ld(1) denotes an exponential decay length within the vegetated region, and Ld(1)/LI=0.30±0.01”
The claim recites additional mathematical formulas. These formulas are used to predict the two-dimensional flow velocity.
3. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation according to claim 2, wherein the flow deflection distance LI within the emergent vegetation patch is determined according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
44
186
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein Cd denotes a vegetation drag coefficient, a denotes a frontal area per canopy volume of vegetation per unit water body, and b denotes half width of the emergent vegetation patch”
The claim recites additional mathematical formulas. These formulas are used to predict the two-dimensional flow velocity further based on the result in claim 2.
4. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation patch according to claim 2, wherein the mean flow velocity Uveg(f) of the fully developed region x>LI within the emergent vegetation patch is determined according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
60
128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein g denotes gravitational acceleration; h denotes a water depth; S denotes a water surface slope; and Cf denotes a bed friction coefficient”
The claim recites additional mathematical formulas. The formula is used to determine the mean flow velocity based on the condition.
5. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation patch according to claim 2, wherein the flow velocity Uveg(0) at the upstream boundary of the vegetated region is determined according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image9.png
36
264
media_image9.png
Greyscale
; wherein U0 denotes a mean flow velocity at the upper stream x<−Lu of the river channel, Lu denotes a flow deflection distance at the upper stream of the emergent vegetation patch, Cd denotes a vegetation drag coefficient, a denotes a frontal area per canopy volume of vegetation per unit water body, and b denotes half width of the emergent vegetation patch”
The claim recites additional mathematical formulas. The formula is used to determine the mean flow velocity based on an alternative condition (claim 4 is the other alternative).
6. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation patch according to claim 1, wherein the mean flow velocity U0 over transverse profiles at the upper stream x<−Lu of the river channel is determined according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image10.png
40
62
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein g denotes gravitational acceleration; h denotes a water depth; S denotes a water surface slope; and Cf denotes a bed friction coefficient”
The claim recites additional mathematical formulas. The formula is used to determine the transverse profiles of the stream.
7. “The exponential model-based method for predicting a two-dimensional flow velocity field in a river channel with emergent vegetation patch according to claim 1, wherein the flow deflection distance Lu at the upper stream of the emergent vegetation patch is within a range of 30-50 cm”
The above only places constraints on the mathematical formula.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following are considered the closest prior art made of record:
Guo, Tong. The role of diversity in savannas: modelling plant functional diversity and its effects on ecosystem functioning. Diss. 2017.
Li, Wen-qi, et al. "Effects of vegetation patch density on flow velocity characteristics in an open channel." Journal of Hydrodynamics 31.5 (2019): 1052-1059.
WO 2019/204254 A1 – WANI et al.
US 2006/0122794 A1 – Sprague et al.
However, this reference or any reference of record or combination of references, do not disclose or suggest, the whole equations as set forth in Claim 1, specifically
wherein a model for the vegetated region is:
PNG
media_image1.png
36
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a model for the bare channel is:
PNG
media_image2.png
40
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
36
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a predicted flow velocity satisfies a flow continuity equation at the side edge of the vegetation patch:
PNG
media_image4.png
36
84
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
a predicted flow velocity in the vegetated region and the bare channel satisfies a flow continuity equation:
PNG
media_image5.png
32
202
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
In combination with the remaining features and elements of the claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
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 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