DETAILED ACTION
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/26/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application and the amended claims filed on 10/6/2023, wherein:
Claims 1-8 remain as original;
Claim 9 has been amended;
Claim 10 have been cancelled; and
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
4. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a. A “model construction unit configured to…” in claims 5 and 6;
b. A “model solution unit configured to…” in claims 5 and 8;
c. A “profile determination unit configured to…” in claim 5;
d. A “longitudinal increment calculation module” in claim 6;
e. A “sediment volume calculation module” in claim 6; and
f. A “river supply volume calculation module” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof is as follows:
A “model construction unit configured to…” in claims 5 and 6 is shown in fig. 10 as model construction unit 10 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the model construction unit will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106);
b. A “model solution unit configured to…” in claims 5 and 8 is shown in fig. 10 as model solution unit 20 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the model solution unit will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106);
c. A “profile determination unit configured to…” in claim 5 is shown in fig. 10 as profile determination unit 30 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the profile determination unit will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106);
d. A “longitudinal increment calculation module” in claim 6 is shown in fig. 11 as longitudinal increment calculation module 101 of model construction unit 10 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the longitudinal increment calculation module will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106);
e. A “sediment volume calculation module” in claim 6 is shown in fig. 11 as sediment volume calculation module 102 of model construction unit 10 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the sediment volume calculation module will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106); and
f. A “river supply volume calculation module” in claim 6 is shown in fig. 11 as river supply volume calculation module 103 of model construction unit 10 and described in para. 0092 as “the term 'unit' or 'module' may realize a combination of software and/or hardware of predetermined functions. Although the system described in the following embodiments is preferably implemented in software, the implementation of hardware, or a combination of software and hardware, is also possible and contemplatable”. For examination purposes the river supply volume calculation module will be interpreted as software implemented by the apparatus which consists of an electronic device such as a computer (specification para. 00106).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and apparatus for determining a continental shelf profile based on non-delta transgression which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Mathematical Concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-9 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1 and 5, the claims recite an abstract idea of: conducting and recording insurance claim transactions. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A method for determining a continental shelf profile based on non-delta transgression, comprising: constructing a continental shelf profile two-dimensional model based on a river supply sediment volume and a sea level rise rate in a target work area; solving the continental shelf profile two-dimensional model in a spatial rectangular coordinate system to generate a relational expression which is capable of representing a non-delta transgression slope and a river length; and determining a continental shelf profile of the target work area based on the relational expression. Independent claim 5 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 5, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mathematical Concepts, since it recites mathematical calculations. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a continental shelf profile two-dimensional model, a spatial rectangular coordinate system, an apparatus, a model construction unit, a model solution unit, a profile determination unit”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-9 recite similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 5; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the apparatus, the continental shelf profile two-dimensional model, a spatial rectangular coordinate system, the model construction unit, a longitudinal increment calculation model, a sediment volume calculation module, a river supply volume calculation module, the model solution unit, an electronic device comprising a memory and a processor”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 5 only recite the additional elements of “a continental shelf profile two-dimensional model, a spatial rectangular coordinate system, an apparatus, a model construction unit, a model solution unit, a profile determination unit”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-9, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the apparatus, the continental shelf profile two-dimensional model, a spatial rectangular coordinate system, the model construction unit, a longitudinal increment calculation model, a sediment volume calculation module, a river supply volume calculation module, the model solution unit, an electronic device comprising a memory and a processor”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-4, and 6-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent clams 1 and 5 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is AU 2020101482A4 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zhang), US 9507052 to Wu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Wu), and US 20200278474 to Ross (hereinafter referred to as Ross). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claims 1 and 5. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Zhang, Wu, and Ross specifically do not disclose: “constructing a continental shelf profile two-dimensional model based on a river supply sediment volume and a sea level rise rate in a target work area; solving the continental shelf profile two-dimensional model in a spatial rectangular coordinate system to generate a relational expression which is capable of representing a non-delta transgression slope and a river length; and determining a continental shelf profile of the target work area based on the relational expression”. Similar reasoning and rationale apply to the other independent claim 5. Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-9 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN103837140B teaches surveying and mapping method for initial back-arc basin continental shelf delimitation.
CN109297999A teaches a kind of measuring method of inner continental shelf sea area sediment source.
CN114494615A teaches a formula line and limit line-based continental shelf external boundary line rapid generation method.
CN120976739A teaches an accurate extraction method for land frame slope foot line considering terrain continuity.
CN111102965B teaches a determination method for continental margin land slope toe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights