Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 12-20 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant election without traverse of Group III (claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/28/22023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: component evaluation modules and a component-aggregation module in claim 12, a parcel-aggregation module in claim 13 and component evaluation modules in claims 14-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim objections
Claim 12 is objected because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “a different combustion pathways” is grammatically incorrect. It is not clear how singular “a different” conflict with plural “pathways”, thus leaving uncertainty about the relationship between modules and pathways. Use either “a different combustion pathway” or “different combustion pathways”. Also, “under a plurality of different weather high-fire danger weather scenarios” appears to contain an accidental duplicated “weather” likely intended as “under plurality of different high-fire danger weather scenarios”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “that boundary”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “That boundary” refers to "other property delineation boundary." Thus, "a tax parcel or other property delineation boundary" can be rewritten as "a property delineation boundary, such as a tax parcel," followed by "within the property delineation boundary."
Claim 14 recites “a wildfire issue’s hazard impact”. The term "wildfire issue" is unclear what specific "wildfire issue" this refers to the “findings of potential fire hazard” and an “individual finding”. The term “wildfire issue” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is better to link it back to an established term, such as "quantify a hazard impact of the potential fire hazard...".
Claim 15 recites “combustion on an individual finding” which is grammatically awkward and unclear. Also, is this a new finding, or the one from Claim 12? It should read: "...on the individual finding" or "...on the inspected finding." Appropriate correction is required.
The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: Such as “the fire hazard profile” in claim 12 and 13, “individual finding” in claim 12, “the structure ignition risks” and “the potential radiant heat” in claim 15, and “the results of an on-parcel” in claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 12-20 is directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1 (Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 12 recites
processes findings of potential fire hazard obtained during on-site parcel inspections; (Evaluating observations to determine if a hazard exists is an act of analyzing, comparing, or evaluating information. Because a human inspector can look at a parcel, think about the data, and conclude "this is a fire hazard" entirely in their mind, it is labeled a mental process. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
produce independent measures of structure ignition potential through a different combustion pathways and under a plurality of different weather high-fire danger weather scenarios for an individual finding; (A human (like a fire safety engineer) could map out pathways, look at weather conditions, and deduce structural risk using their mind or paper worksheets. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).and
produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of an individual finding. (A human could theoretically look at the data of an individual finding, think about it, and assign a risk score for the fire hazard. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of an information technology system comprising: a data processor, a plurality of component evaluation modules and a component-aggregation module in claim 1 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of an information technology system comprising: a data processor, a plurality of component evaluation modules and a component-aggregation module in claim 1 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further recites produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of a tax parcel or other property delineation boundary from a plurality of findings located within that boundary. Collecting data within a geographic boundary (a tax parcel) and evaluating it to determine a hazard profile is an act that can be performed entirely in the human mind, or by a human using a pencil and paper. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) The additional elements of parcel-aggregation module in claim 13 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 14 further recites where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to quantify a wildfire issue’s hazard impact on a plurality of surrounding structures, regardless of parcel or administrative boundaries. Evaluating data, quantifying impacts, and analyzing geographic risks are steps that can be performed in the human mind or with a pencil and paper. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 15 further recites here the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for the structure ignition risks created by the potential radiant heat produced by combustion on an inspection finding. A human building inspector or fire protection engineer can look at a field finding, perform the mental math or logic regarding radiant heat, and determine the structural ignition risk. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 16 further recites where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for structure ignition risks created by potential deposition of embers on or adjacent to downwind structures. A person looking at wind data and estimating which house might catch fire), which is evaluation and view as a mental process. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 17 further recites where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for structure ignition risks created by different building design features and materials of construction. A person can mentally (or with pen and paper) review a building's design features (e.g., roof pitch, window placement) and materials (e.g., wood vs. concrete) to "account for" or estimate fire/ignition risks So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 18 further recites further configured to facilitate financial tradeoff evaluation and location-specific risk-mitigation prioritization. Evaluating "financial tradeoffs" and "prioritizing risk mitigation" are judgments, opinions, and evaluations. So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 19 further recites further configured to include an application programming interface (API), wherein the API accepts requests over a data network and returns data in a machine readable format to a calling client. These limitations recite the abstract concept of transmitting, collecting, and formatting data and falls under insignificant extra solution activity and recognized as generic computer functions that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (SEE MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim 20 further recites generate high-value fire suppression strategies that account for both forecast wildfire spread behavior and the results of an on-parcel wildfire risk evaluation. A person can take wildfire forecast maps (Data A), look at a property risk checklist (Data B), and mentally formulate a suppression strategy (Output). So, it falls under the “Mental process” of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) The additional elements of neural network in claim 20 which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (US20140244318A1).) in view of Cohen et al. ("Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM)\t." In: Weise, David R.; Martin, Robert E., technical coordinators. The Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and wildland ecosystems; February 15-17, 1994; Walnut Creek, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; p. 85-92. Vol. 158. 1995.)
Regarding claim 12
Drake teaches an information technology system comprising: (see para 12- The present invention is a computer-implemented system for collecting and assessing wildfire hazard data)
a data processor that processes findings of potential fire hazard obtained during on-site parcel inspections; (See para 0068-0071- The present invention is a system and method for collecting wildfire risk inspection data in the field at the property/home site using a mobile device application; user collects wildfire hazard assessment data at policyholder properties as prompted by the mobile device application and sends this data to the wildfire risk assessment provider server for analysis. Once the data hits the wildfire risk assessment provider server, it is immediately processed by the level of service algorithm, which defines what actions, if any, the wildfire risk assessment provider takes to further process the data. See para 0083- The site-based risk algorithm (“A” an FIG. 45) produces a total of all “Yes” (“wildfire risk is present” for the condition in question) answers to wildfire risk assessment condition questions. see para 0130-0132- Next, the user walks through all data collection steps, answering “Yes,” “No” or “Not Sure” to questions and attaching photos or notes to risk conditions as prompted. A conditions section breaks the conditions out individually, associating any notes and photos that have been submitted for the condition.)
a plurality of component evaluation modules (see para 0068- using a number of algorithmic calculations, which may be used independently or in combination: (1) the site-based risk algorithm. (2) location-based risk algorithm, (3) level of service algorithm, (4) updated wildfire risk algorithm, and (5) integrated wildfire risk algorithm)
(see para 167-168- Climactic conditions that can change to affect a given property threat include, but are not limited to, humidity, temperature and wind. A property's threat level increases in accordance with whether it is non-wildfire season, wildfire season, wildfire season with red-flag warnings affecting the area, and wildfire season with active wildfire (a wildfire burning within three miles of the property). See para 132- A conditions section breaks the conditions out individually, associating any notes and photos that have been submitted for the condition. See para 135- If a given wildfire risk condition (for instance, venting has openings larger the ⅛) is answered “Yes,” points assigned to the condition are added to the accruing site-based risk total)
Drake does not teach a plurality of component evaluation modules that produce independent measures of structure ignition potential through a different combustion pathways and under a plurality of different weather high-fire danger weather scenarios for an individual finding; and a component-aggregation module that produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of an individual finding.
In the related field of invention, Cohen teaches a plurality of component evaluation modules that produce independent measures of structure ignition potential through a different combustion pathways and under a plurality of different weather high-fire danger weather scenarios for an individual finding; a component-aggregation module that produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of an individual finding. (see fig 2 and page 86-87- The SIAM model consists of six principal processing steps (items in the brackets refer to fig. 2): 1) [Structure Design, Topography, Fire Weather Severity, Fuels, Expert Designated Fire Behavior] SIAM inputs require the description of the structure and site conditions, including a fire professional’s estimate of flame lengths that are consistent with the chosen potential severe fire weather conditions. The Structure Design inputs relate to the general design, e.g., roof flammability, exterior materials, windows, nooks and crannies, and exterior dimensions. The Topography input refers to the degree of slope and whether it is upslope or downslope from the structure. Also included is the structure/slope set-back, i.e., the horizontal distance between the structure and the slope. The Fire Weather Severity is a selected level of weather conditions for planning WUI fire safety. The inputs explicitly involve windspeed, temperature, and fine fuel moisture content. Implicitly, the Fire Weather Severity guides the user in designating, and/or calculating, the fire behavior characteristics. The final rating is a dimensionless quantity, linearly related to potential structure ignition)
PNG
media_image1.png
312
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Fig 2 flowchart explicitly shows three primary pathways leading to IGNITIONS: direct flame exposure via HEAT TRANSFER and airborne embers via Firebrands and Structural Vulnerability via Structure Design that show different Combustion Pathways. It utilizes Fire Weather Severity as a foundational input to determine how varying weather conditions influence overall fire behavior and flames. The final block, IGNITION RISK RATING, aggregates all preceding components (topography, weather, fuels, structure design, and ignition pathways) to produce a scalar metric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for generating wildfire risk valuations and mitigation recommendations as disclosed by Drake to include a plurality of component evaluation modules that produce independent measures of structure ignition potential through a different combustion pathways and under a plurality of different weather high-fire danger weather scenarios for an individual finding; and a component-aggregation module that produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of an individual finding as taught by Cohen as in the system of Drake for sustained structure ignitions to the location and characteristics of adjacent fires and the structure’s materials and design. Another motivation is for the facilitation of improved fire safety as well as to identify potential wildland/urban interface fire problems. (See Abstract and page 86 col 1, Cohen)
Regarding claim 13
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches further configured to include a parcel- aggregation module that produces a scalar metric describing the fire hazard profile of a tax parcel or other property delineation boundary from a plurality of findings located within that boundary. (see para 97-100The sum total of “Yes” (wildfire risk condition is present) values on or around a structure create the site-based risk total. The crown fire activity layer, the flame length layer, and the reclassified VCC layer described above are equally weighted from 0-3, and each layer value is added to create a location-based risk value on a scale of 0-9. The raster math function in ARCGIS™ (http://www.arcgis.com/featuers/) is used to perform this step of the process, and the calculation is as follows: crown fire (0-3)+flame length (0-3)+VCC (0-3)=location-based risk (0-9).See para 0174-FIG. 50 is a diagram of the integrated wildfire risk algorithm. This integrated wildfire risk value is generated using the integrated wildfire risk algorithm, which multiplies all known risk scores for a given property, specifically (a) site-based risk total, (b) location-based risk value, and (c) updated wildfire risk multiplier. For instance, if a given site had a site-based risk total of 3, a location-based risk value of 3 and an updated wildfire risk multiplier of 3, its integrated wildfire risk value would be 27 (3*3*3)=18.)
Regarding claim 14
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to quantify a wildfire issue's hazard impact on a plurality of surrounding structures, regardless of parcel or administrative boundaries. (see para 10- Wildfire fuels around the property and immediate surroundings are often analyzed in isolation rather than comprehensively, and thus the fuel continuity/density picture so vital to properly assessing wildfire movement may not be fully fleshed out. see para 145- home exterior option allows users to proceed through questions specific to materials that make up their home/primary structure. Risk items include, but are not limited to, windows, siding, elevated components, roof material, debris on the roof, openings in the wall/attic, gutters, eaves, detached structures, and attached structures. The yard data collection items include, but are not limited to, vegetation on toe property, combustible materials on the property including secondary structure like decks and fences, unmanaged vegetation outside of the property, and topography conditions around the property.)
Regarding claim 15
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for the structure ignition risks created by the potential radiant heat produced by combustion on an inspection finding. (see para 91-93-If the exterior of urn home is constructed of combustible materials or contains unprotected openings such as vents and windows, direct name impingement radiant heat or entry of firebrands into the home is more likely to result in a home ignition. This area of the home enclosure is the secondary risk zone (four points per condition) due to this potential for direct flame impingement or the entry of firebrands into the interior of the home. This zone includes the structure itself, any combustible attachments to the structure (deck, patio, etc.) and vegetation and combustible materials within five feet of the home. Vegetation beyond live feet and within 100 feet may have the potential to create sufficient heat flux or loft firebrands onto the home. If there are substantial bad packets beyond 100 feet from the home, it is possible to generate heat flux in excess of 20 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2), which likely will not have a significant impact relative to home ignition.)
Regarding claim 16
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for structure ignition risks created by potential deposition of embers on or adjacent to downwind structures. (see para 90-92-As such, the roof of a structure is considered the primary risk zone (44 points) because it is one of its largest features, and as loft/arrangement often creates a near horizontal space on which blowing firebrands can land and collect. Entry of firebrands into the home is more likely to result in a home ignition. loft firebrands onto the home)
Regarding claim 17
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches where the plurality of component evaluation modules are configured to account for structure ignition risks created by different building design features and materials of construction. (see para 91- If the exterior of urn home is constructed of combustible materials or contains unprotected openings such as vents and windows, direct name impingement radiant heat or entry of firebrands into the home is more likely to result in a home ignition. See para 145- The home exterior option allows users to proceed through questions specific to materials that make up their home/primary structure. Risk items include, but are not limited to, windows, siding, elevated components, roof material, debris on the roof, openings in the wall/attic, gutters, eaves, detached structures, and attached structures. The yard data collection items include, but are not limited to, vegetation on toe property, combustible materials on the property including secondary structure like decks and fences, unmanaged vegetation outside of the property, and topography conditions around the property. see para 149- Drop-down menu functionality can be used to suit cases where given subset options exist (for instance, roofing material type).)
Regarding claim 18
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches configured to facilitate financial tradeoff evaluation (see para 85- The level of service algorithm (see “C” on FIG. 45) is a calculation that multiplies the site-based risk total by the location-based risk value. The result of this calculation can be used by the insurer/client to define a number of things, including how the wildfire risk assessment provider services the data included in the report (i.e., whether it is autocompleted or requires wildfire risk assessment staff analysis), how underwriting policies are written/priced, and what kind of wildfire response actions are taken. See also para 101) and location-specific risk-mitigation prioritization. (see para 175- Integrated risk score thresholds can suggest a priority of property visit, as defined by the client. Details gathered in the site-based risk assessment can be used to aid on-the-ground efforts to locate the property, prepare for location-based risk factors at play, and define pre-suppression (pre-wildfire risk reduction) actions needed)
Regarding claim 19
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake further teaches further configured to include an application programming interface (API), wherein the API accepts requests over a data network and returns data in a machine readable format to a calling client. (see para 77-78- The data submitted by the user to the wildfire risk assessment provider server is displayed in a web interface accessible to wildfire risk assessment provider staff. This interface allows this data to be validated, revised or queried before being returned to the user and/or client. Completed reports can be viewed on the user's mobile device and/or as a downloadable and printable report in the form of a MICROSOFT WORD™ document, ADOBE ACROBAT™.pdf tile, or both. see para 115- FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of the wildfire risk assessment provider server functions. The communication between the users mobile device application and wildfire risk assessment provider server occurs via an application programming interface (API), which is protected by OAuth (an open standard for authentication). See para 107- A financed version of the report can be reviewed at this time; it is viewable in the form of a series of recommendation screens in the mobile device application, along with a document of the report in the format of a MICROSOFT WORD™ document or ADOBE ACROBAT™.pdf the that the user can download, email or print.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (PUB NO: US20140244318A1).) in view of Cohen et al. ("Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM)\t." In: Weise, David R.; Martin, Robert E., technical coordinators. The Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and wildland ecosystems; February 15-17, 1994; Walnut Creek, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; p. 85-92. Vol. 158. 1995.) and further in view of Tohidi et al. (PUB NO: US20200155881A1
Regarding claim 20
The combination of Draken and Cohen teaches the information technology system of Claim 12. Drake does not teach to use a neural network to generate high-value fire suppression strategies that account for both forecast wildfire spread behavior and the results of an on-parcel wildfire risk evaluation.
In the related field of invention, Tohidi teaches to use a neural network to generate high-value fire suppression strategies that account for both forecast wildfire spread behavior and the results of an on-parcel wildfire risk evaluation. (see para 197- he suppression efforts, also referred to as mitigation efforts, indicate the actions taken, or that will be implemented, to fight the fire, such as burning areas ahead of the fire, cutting trees, dumping water, etc. The impact of the suppression efforts is also taken into account to modify the prediction of how the fire would spread were those efforts not implemented. see para 206-212-FIG. 21 illustrates a fire spread model utilizing a machine-learning approach, performed by the computer system, according to some example embodiments. The machine-learning model for fire forecasting utilizes the fire-related features (e.g., features 1702 described above with reference to FIG. 17), including the current state of the fire, to develop a fire spread model 2114 that produces an estimation of the fire evolution over time. FIG. 22 is hardware architecture to mitigate fire spread, according to some example embodiments. “Mitigation” refers to the actions that may be taken in the community to lower the negative effects of fire in a region or a community. One goal of implementing mitigation activities is to reduce the risk to people, property, and land. Mitigation 2202 includes three areas: fuel management 2204, property risk 2206, and fuel and land disturbance 2208. Fuel management 2204 analyzes the fire fuel (e.g., combustible materials) in the region and designs measures to reduce the amount of fuel for the fire in order to decrease the possible destruction by fire and the spread of the fire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for generating wildfire risk valuations and mitigation recommendations as disclosed by Drake to include to use a neural network to generate high-value fire suppression strategies that account for both forecast wildfire spread behavior and the results of an on-parcel wildfire risk evaluation as taught by Tohidi as in the system of Drake and Cohen in order to improve the quality of fire spread predictions and taking a suppression efforts to fight the fire, such as burning areas ahead of the fire, cutting trees, dumping water, etc. The impact of the suppression efforts is also considered to modify the prediction of how the fire would spread. (See para 197, 210, Tohidi)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Engler et al. US20220383102A1
Discussing the method to analyze the application of satellite imaging and deep learning in predicting ignition and spread of major wildfires.
8. All claims 12-20 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to 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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights