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 .
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 1-18, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to device, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites to extract a candidate area for investigation of a disaster situation using sensor information acquired by a sensor information acquisition device; acquire a ground surface change that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result made by a ground surface measurement device in the candidate area; and determine an investigation area for investigation of a disaster situation in the candidate area using the ground surface change. The claims require extracting an area candidate area to be used for determination of an investigation area (Specification, pars. 45, 46), which is equivalent to selection or observation of an area. The claims further require acquiring ground surface change in the candidate area and determining an investigation area using the ground surface change. These limitations require further observation and making a judgment or opinion based on those observations. Therefore, the claim limitations fall into the mental processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The additional elements are a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a memory and a processor amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claims 2-18 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-18 are not integrated into a practical application and do not recite limitations that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 39 is directed to method, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 39 recites an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1. Claim 39 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 39 is not integrated into a practical application and does not recite limitations that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 41 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 41 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18, 39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/084698 to Morita et al. (Morita).
Claims 1, 39 and 41
With regard to: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instruction; Morita teaches a computer system with memory (pars. 36, 37).
With regard to instructions to: extract a candidate area for investigation of a disaster situation using sensor information acquired by a sensor information acquisition device; Morita teaches acquiring status information that includes geographical attributes and locations (pars. 27-30).
With regard to instructions to: acquire a ground surface change that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result made by a ground surface measurement device in the candidate area; Morita teaches analyzing information extract areas of change on the Earth’s surface (pars. 31, 32).
With regard to instructions to: determine an investigation area for investigation of a disaster situation in the candidate area using the ground surface change; Morita teaches operating an analysis device to confirm analysis results based on the results of the observation and extracted areas of change (par. 35).
Claim 2
Morita teaches that the candidate area includes a non-acquisition area where the sensor information used for extraction of the candidate area is not acquired (pars. 27, 28, status information may be acquired from sensors or from status information providing device).
Claim 3
Morita teaches that the candidate area includes an area where the sensor information cannot be acquired in the non-acquisition area (par. 25).
Claim 4
Morita teaches that the candidate area is an area where a mobile body on which the sensor information acquisition device is mounted is movable (par. 25).
Claim 5
Morita teaches that the mobile body on which the sensor information acquisition device is mounted is a vehicle (par. 25).
Claim 6
Morita teaches that the sensor information includes at least one of an image, a speed, acceleration, and a distance (par. 22, image).
Claim 8
Morita teaches instructions to: extract the candidate area using disaster information (par. 27).
Claim 9
Morita teaches that the disaster information includes at least one of a rainfall range, an amount of rainfall, rain cloud information, a wind direction, a wind volume, a seismic source, seismic intensity, a situation of an aftershock, a power outage, a water outage, a map related to a disaster, a disaster range, a secondary disaster, and past disaster information (par. 27).
Claim 10
Morita teaches instructions to: determine an investigatable area using the ground surface change, and determine the investigation area based on the investigatable area and the candidate area (par. 35).
Claim 11
Morita teaches instructions to: set an investigation priority in the investigation area using at least one of the ground surface change and the sensor information (par. 29).
Claim 12
Morita teaches instructions to: determine the investigation area using a type of a ground surface (par. 31).
Claim 13
Morita teaches instructions to: determine a hazardous area that is an area where it is better to avoid investigation, using at least one of the ground surface change and the sensor information (pars. 64, 66, meteorological observations of water level information, tsunami warnings, high wave warnings).
Claim 14
Morita teaches that the hazardous area is at least one of an area where the ground surface change is larger than a predetermined value and an area where the sensor information includes information related to danger (par. 64, location of observations).
Claim 15
Morita teaches instructions to: determine a risk level of the hazardous area using at least one of the ground surface change and the sensor information (par. 67, most serious (worst) information may determine priority).
Claim 16
Morita teaches instructions to: determine the hazardous area using a type of a ground surface (par. 31).
Claim 17
Morita teaches instructions to: determine a type of disaster using at least one of the sensor information and the ground surface change (pars. 64, 66).
Claim 18
Morita teaches instructions to: determine a disaster range using at least one of the sensor information and the ground surface change acquired in the investigation area (pars. 64-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of CN 110111352 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Morita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. Morita does not teach that the ground surface measurement device includes a synthetic aperture radar. Chen teaches measuring the ground surface using synthetic aperture radar (par. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the analysis, as taught by Morita, to include SAR, as taught by Chen, because then a well known method of determining water mapping and flooding would have been available (Chen, par. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights