DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments received on 09/16/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 19 are amended. Claims 7 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, however the arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
In response to Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner notes the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn. See Discussion of Prior Art section set forth below.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed on 09/16/2025 have considered. The amendments are not entered.
The specification is not entered for the following informalities that render the disclosure confusing. In particular, applicant’s amendment filed on 09/16/2025 introduces inconsistent/contradictory terminology for example originally filed paragraph [0048] discloses “the highest EPCI 136” vs amended [0048] “the highest EPSI 136”. The examiner notes that notation for 136 is associated with EPCI (e.g., [0036], [0037], [0059], [0060]) not EPSI.
The examiner further notes in the amendments to the specification filed on 09/16/2025, the applicant requests on page 2 to replace paragraph [00048] with “[0001] Finally, the earthquake component [....]”, the paragraph number is not consistent.
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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-6) and the system (claims 8-13) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied. Claims 14-19 are not in one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 14 recites “computer read-able medium” embodying various instructions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning. There is no special definition, and the specification does not preclude the use of signals. As a result, claims 14-19 encompasses within its scope signals per se and are thus not statutory. See In re. Nuijten, 500 F.3rd 1346, 1356-57. Examiner suggests adding the term “non-transitory" to the Claims.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of generating a rehabilitation plan for a commodity pipe network which can be categorized as “Mental process”, “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, and “Mathematical concept”. The abstract idea is categorized as “Certain methods of organizing human activity” because it is directed to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). The abstract idea can be categorized as “mental process” because it is directed concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by the aid of a pen and/or paper and within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2106.04(a). The abstract idea can further be categorized as “Mathematical concept”, because they are directed to i.e., calculating a spatially correlated peak ground velocity field for a scenario earthquake event and calculating a nodal equity factor for the node. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 8, are: A system for generating a rehabilitation plan for a commodity pipe network comprising: at least one computing device; and a computer-readable medium with computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by the at least one computing device cause the system to: receive an indication of a pipe network; generate a graph based on the pipe network, wherein the graph includes a plurality of edges with each edge representing a pipe in the pipe network, and further wherein the graph includes a plurality of nodes, wherein each node represents either a commodity source or a commodity sink; calculate a spatially correlated peak ground velocity field for a scenario earthquake event in the pipe network; based on the spatially correlated peak ground velocity field, assign a damage value to each pipe; for each node in the graph, calculate a nodal equity factor for the node; receive a maximum cost value; and based on the maximum cost value, the nodal equity factor for each node, and the damage value assigned to each pipe, provide a rehabilitation policy for the pipe network, and repairing or replacing at least one pipe in the pipe network based on the rehabilitation policy wherein calculating the post-earthquake Equity-based System Serviceability Index value for rehabilitation policy comprises solving the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(the equation is considered mathematical concept). Claims 1 and 14 recite substantially the same limitation as claim 8 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a system for generating a rehabilitation plan for a commodity pipe network, at least one computing device, repairing or replacing at least one pipe in the pipe network based on the rehabilitation policy (recited at high level of generality and is considered post-solution and/or field of use instruction i.e., applying the result of the calculation), and a computer-readable medium with computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by the at least one computing device cause the system to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s figure 5 describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: to a system for generating a rehabilitation plan for a commodity pipe network, at least one computing device, repairing or replacing at least one pipe in the pipe network based on the rehabilitation policy (recited at high level of generality and amounts to giving instructions to a technician after the abstract/planning is done), and a computer-readable medium with computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by the at least one computing device cause the system to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (figure 5) describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mathematical concept, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 1-6 and 9-19 would be allowable, if they were amended in such a way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth in the action.
The closest prior art fails to teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, a method and a system for visualizing a work order of a smart gas platform, wherein the method is executed by a smart gas management platform of an Internet of Things system for visualizing a work order of a smart gas platform, the method comprises: obtaining work order management data and executor data; wherein the work order management data refers to work order operation and maintenance data in a preset time period, the executor data is data related to a work order executor; determining a matching degree between the work order executor and at least one gas work order by processing the work order management data and the executor data through a matching model, wherein the matching model is a machine learning model; determining at least one candidate gas work order based on the matching degree; wherein the matching model includes a first feature extraction layer and a matching layer, wherein the first feature extraction layer is used to determine a matching feature by processing the work order management data and the executor data; the matching layer is used to determine the matching degree between the work order executor and the at least one gas work order by processing the matching feature and surrounding work order information; the surrounding work order information refers to work order information that relates to the circumstances surrounding a matching work order, the matching work order includes a work order that the work order executor is currently executing, and a work order that the work order executor has received but is not yet executing; and the matching model is obtained by jointly training by the first feature extraction layer and the matching layer based on a plurality of training samples with labels; wherein the training samples include a work order management data sample and an executor data sample; the labels are known matching degrees of historical work order executors to the at least one gas work order; and the labels are obtained from historical data stored on smart gas data center or obtained by manual annotation; generating, based on the at least one candidate gas work order, a first information to be presented; wherein the first information to be presented includes at least one of a type of the at least one candidate gas work order, difficulty information of the at least one candidate gas work order, geographic position information of the at least one candidate gas work order, status information of the at least one candidate gas work order, and geographic position information of the work order executor; generating a gas work order data graph based on the first information to be presented, the gas work order data graph being a visual chart; controlling user terminals for different work order executors with different ability levels to display different gas work order data graphs; in response to the work order executor having a interaction with a user terminal, determining a second information to be presented; wherein the interaction includes an active interaction and a passive interaction, and the second information to be presented includes work order time distribution information and gas problem help information from an executor who has executed the at least one gas work order; updating the gas work order data graph based on the second information to be presented; controlling certain user terminals for different work order executors with specific different ability levels to display different gas work order data graphs; determining a gas problem help information display scope, wherein the gas problem help information display scope relates to difficulty information of the at least one gas work order, geographic position information of the at least one gas work order, geographic position information of the work order executor, and an ability level of a personnel; and controlling the user terminals of the work order executor in a certain geographic region to display the gas problem help information.
The closest prior art of record is Torimoto Shinya (JP 2021028842 A, hereinafter “Shinya”), Martin Berogg (US 2008/0021659 A1, hereinafter “Bertogg”), Li Yawei (CN 113704999 A, hereinafter “Yawei”), and Jeongwook Choi (NPL “Post-Earthquake Restoration Simulation Model for Water Supply Networks”, hereinafter “Choi”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180348080 A1
Device, Method, and Recording Medium
Inoue; Hirofumi et al.
JP 2005158081 A
Management Method and Device for Earthquake-Related Derivative, and Computer Program
Sumi Takayuki et al.
US 20040267577 A1
Method and apparatus for managing risk of disaster
Nakai, Kentaro
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 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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights