DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant is claiming Foreign Priority to Foreign Applications CN 202210661515.0 filed on 06/13/2022.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment dated 07/23/2025, amended claims 1 and 8.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-7, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 07/23/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “claim 1 is a method claim that merely involves an abstract idea, thereby rendering it patent eligible.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether the claim recites any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Here, under the first prong of Step 2A, the claim (claim 1) recite “collecting original space vector data of urban roads, and polygon data of public service facilities and residential communities; mapping an urban space into a weighted and directed urban basic space network based on the urban roads; and on that basis, mapping the public service facilities and the residential communities into function nodes in the weighted and directed urban basic space network to construct a residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under normal conditions; taking the residence-service-transportation urban space complex setwork in step Si as an initial scenario, removing, through an experiment analog simulation, failed road segments, wherein the failed road segments are impassable due to disturbances of different intensities of disasters, and constructing a damaged residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under different disaster intensities; allocating a service level of the public service facilities to residential nodes according to a flow cost and a supply-demand scale between residence-service point pairs, and calculating a per capita accessible public service level of residents within the residential nodes, thereby forming an urban space network performance model based on resident accessible public Services; calculating a change rate of the per capita accessible public service level before and after a disaster in each statistical unit according to the urban space network performance model based on the resident accessible public services in step S3 to represent performance changes of the urban public services; and drawing a relation curve between the change rate of the per capita accessible public service level and the disaster intensity to measure the disaster resilience of the urban public services,
PNG
media_image1.png
781
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”
A claim recites mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical calculations, wherein if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the claim being practically performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is in the mental process category. Id. at 52 n.14. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims are directed to mental processes and mathematical calculations.
Applicant asserts that “amended claim 1 defines form of a measurement technique that integrates any alleged abstract idea recited in claim 1 into a practical application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, is the recitations of “collecting original space vector data of urban roads, and polygon data of public service facilities and residential communities; mapping an urban space into a weighted and directed urban basic space network based on the urban roads; and on that basis, mapping the public service facilities and the residential communities into function nodes in the weighted and directed urban basic space network to construct a residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under normal conditions; taking the residence-service-transportation urban space complex setwork in step Si as an initial scenario, removing, through an experiment analog simulation, failed road segments, wherein the failed road segments are impassable due to disturbances of different intensities of disasters, and constructing a damaged residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under different disaster intensities; allocating a service level of the public service facilities to residential nodes according to a flow cost and a supply-demand scale between residence-service point pairs, and calculating a per capita accessible public service level of residents within the residential nodes, thereby forming an urban space network performance model based on resident accessible public Services; calculating a change rate of the per capita accessible public service level before and after a disaster in each statistical unit according to the urban space network performance model based on the resident accessible public services in step S3 to represent performance changes of the urban public services; and drawing a relation curve between the change rate of the per capita accessible public service level and the disaster intensity to measure the disaster resilience of the urban public services……………… Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “the claimed method is not routine or conventional.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “second part of the Alice/Mayo test ([Step 2B]) is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). The additional elements recited beyond the abstract idea, when viewed as an order combination may not be sufficient to qualify as significantly more, for several separate reasons, which include, among other reasons: (1) the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the aforementioned recited abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) or (2) the additional elements, simply append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, previously known in the field, recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05 (d).
Here, with respect to Step 2B, beyond the recited abstract idea claim 1, does not recite any additional elements. Alice at 2358; 79 Fed. Reg. 74624; MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
With respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant's remarks filed on 23 July 2025 (pages 15-16 in particular) were deemed to be persuasive and adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why claims are allowable over the prior art of record.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes “collecting original space vector data of urban roads, and polygon data of public service facilities and residential communities; mapping an urban space into a weighted and directed urban basic space network based on the urban roads; and on that basis, mapping the public service facilities and the residential communities into function nodes in the weighted and directed urban basic space network to construct a residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under normal conditions; taking the residence-service-transportation urban space complex setwork in step Si as an initial scenario, removing, through an experiment analog simulation, failed road segments, wherein the failed road segments are impassable due to disturbances of different intensities of disasters, and constructing a damaged residence-service-transportation urban space complex network under different disaster intensities; allocating a service level of the public service facilities to residential nodes according to a flow cost and a supply-demand scale between residence-service point pairs, and calculating a per capita accessible public service level of residents within the residential nodes, thereby forming an urban space network performance model based on resident accessible public Services; calculating a change rate of the per capita accessible public service level before and after a disaster in each statistical unit according to the urban space network performance model based on the resident accessible public services in step S3 to represent performance changes of the urban public services; and drawing a relation curve between the change rate of the per capita accessible public service level and the disaster intensity to measure the disaster resilience of the urban public services,
PNG
media_image1.png
781
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical calculations because the elements describe a process for measuring a disaster resilience of urban public services. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 3-7 further describe the process for measuring a disaster resilience of urban public services. As a result, claims 3-7 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3-7 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 3-7 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As a result, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3-7 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 3-7 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri (8am - 5pm) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 08/07/2025