DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/09/2026 has been entered.
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 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 8), non-transitory computer storage readable medium (claims 9 - 16), and a system with structural components (claims 17 - 24).
Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
providing, by processing the region data in accordance with trained parameter values of a first WMA model, first predicted WMA region data representative of the region, if the first set of WMAs was executed in the region;
For example, a human can review at regional data and mentally predict what the region would look like based on past learned experiences.
providing, by processing the region data in accordance with trained parameter values of a wildfire characteristic model, pre-WMA characteristic data representative of one or more pre-WMA characteristics of a wildfire in the region;
For example, a human reviews weather and terrain data and mentally estimates wildlife behavior for the region.
providing, by processing the first predicted WMA region data in accordance with the trained parameter values of the wildfire characteristic model, first post-WMA characteristic data representative of one or more post-WMA characteristics of a wildfire in the region;
For example, a human considered predicted conditions and mentally updates their estimate of how the wildfire will behave after those changes.
generating first impact results based on the pre-WMA characteristic data and the first post-WMA characteristic data, the first impact results representing an impact of the first set of WMAs on the one or more pre-WMA characteristics, if the first set of WMAs is executed in the region
For example, a human observes predicted conditions and mentally updates their expectation of how a wildfire will spread after those changes.
in response to determining to deploy the first set of WMAs in the region based at least on the first impact results, providing the first set of WMAs for deployment in the region.
For example, a human observes predicted conditions and mentally updates their expectation of how a wildfire will spread after those changes.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving region data comprising a plurality of data layers representative of a region comprising a geographical area, wherein each data layer of the plurality of data layers comprises respective property values of a plurality of locations withing the geographical area;
receiving WMA data representative of a first set of WMAs that is to be evaluated for potential execution in the region;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites one or more processors which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receiving region data comprising a plurality of data layers representative of a region comprising a geographical area, wherein each data layer of the plurality of data layers comprises respective property values of a plurality of locations withing the geographical area;
receiving WMA data representative of a first set of WMAs that is to be evaluated for potential execution in the region;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim further recites one or more processors which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
selecting the first WMA model from a plurality of WMA models in response to the WMA data
For example, a human compares past outcomes and picks the model that best matches the data
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
The first WMA model being trained specific to the first set of WMAs
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The first WMA model being trained specific to the first set of WMAs
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
providing, by processing the region data in accordance with trained parameter values of a second WMA model, second predicted WMA region data representative of the region, if a second set of WMAs was executed in the region, the second set of WMAs being different from the first set of WMAs;
For example, a human can look at regional data and mentally predict a different outcome based on a plurality of past experiences.
providing, processing the second predicted WMA region data in accordance with the trained parameter values of the wildfire characteristic model, second post-WMA characteristic data representative of one or more post-WMA characteristics of a wildfire in the region;
For example, a human reviews different weather and terrain data and mentally estimates wildlife behavior for another region.
generating second impact results based on the pre-WMA characteristic data and the second post-WMA characteristic data, the second impact results representing an impact of the second set of WMAs on the one or more pre-WMA characteristics, if the second set of WMAs is executed in the region.
For example, a human observes several predicted conditions and mentally updates their expectation of how a wildfire will spread after those changes.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 2 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the first WMA model is trained using training data comprising pre-WMA region data and post-WMA region data, the pre-WMA region data representing properties of each region in a set of regions prior to the set of WMAs being executed in each region of the set of regions, and the post-WMA region data representing properties of each region in the set of regions after the set of WMAs is actually executed in each region.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the first WMA model is trained using training data comprising pre-WMA region data and post-WMA region data, the pre-WMA region data representing properties of each region in a set of regions prior to the set of WMAs being executed in each region of the set of regions, and the post-WMA region data representing properties of each region in the set of regions after the set of WMAs is actually executed in each region.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
post-WMA region data for each region is generated within a threshold time of the set of WMAs being actually executed in each region
For example, a human checks if tasks were completed on time and groups them by region.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
post-WMA region data for each region is generated within a time period of a year that corresponds to the time period of a previous year, in which the set of WMAs is actually executed in each region.
For example, a human compares this year’s activity to the same time last year for each region
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 2 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the set of WMAs comprises one or more brush clearing, prescribed burn, and fire line information
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein the set of WMAs comprises one or more brush clearing, prescribed burn, and fire line information
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 8,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 2 above
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
the first WMA learning model is one of a convolution neural network (CNN), a residual neural network (RNN), and a generative adversarial network (GAN).
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the first WMA learning model is one of a convolution neural network (CNN), a residual neural network (RNN), and a generative adversarial network (GAN).
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites a non-transitory computer storage medium which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim further recites one or more processors and a computer-readable storage device which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 21 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 22 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 23 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 24 has similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
"i. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically Be Performed In The Human Mind Does Not Recite A Mental Process "
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (emphasis in original).
Specifically, Applicant asserts that the human mind cannot practically "process[] region data in accordance with trained parameter values of a first WMA model" or "process[] region data in accordance with trained parameter values of a wildfire characteristic model," where the "region data" is a complex input "comprising a plurality of data layers representative of a region comprising a geographical area, wherein each data layer of the plurality of data layers comprises respective property values of a plurality of locations within the geographical area." (Emphasis added.)
The Office reaffirmed this point in a recently issued memorandum by Deputy Commissioner for Patents Charles Kim, entitled Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, issued on Aug. 4, 2025 (The August Memo"), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf.
The August Memo states:
The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).
The mental process grouping is not without limits. Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
August Memo, pg. 2 (Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully submits that human minds cannot in practice process "region data comprising a plurality of data layers representative of a region comprising a geographical area, wherein each data layer of the plurality of data layers comprises respective property values of a plurality of locations within the geographical area" in accordance with "trained parameter values of a first WMA model" and "trained parameter values of a wildfire characteristic model", as recited by the amended claim. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind cannot practically "process[] the first predicted WMA region data in accordance with the trained parameter values of the wildfire characteristic model," as further recited by the amended claim. (Emphasis added.)
Additionally, in response to the Examiner's assertion on Office Action, page 5 that "[t]he claim further recites one or more processors which is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component," Applicant respectfully submits that In Ex parte Desjardins (Appeals Review Panel) warns against a Section 101 analysis that "equate[s] any machine learning with an unpatentable
'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components". Id. At page 9. Appeal No. 2024-000567, Application No. 16/319,040 (PTO App. Rev. Panel Sept. 26, 2025) (Decision on Rehearing).
Furthermore, Applicant submits that the amended claim is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim is integrated into a practical application because the amended claim explicitly recites "generating first impact results based on the pre-WMA characteristic data and the first post-WMA characteristic data, the first impact results representing an impact of the first set of WMAs on the one or more pre-WMA characteristics, if the first set of WMAs is executed in the region" and "in response to determining to deploy the first set of WMAs in the region based at least on the first impact results, providing the first set of WMAs for deployment in the region." (Emphasis added.)
In particular, Applicant submits that the amended claim provides for "selecting WMAs that mitigate wildfires more effectively than other WMAs", (Specification, [0010]), by "generating first impact results" and "providing the first set of WMAs for deployment in the region [based at least on the first impact results]". As detailed throughout the Specification, for example at [0039]: "[b]y determining the likely impact of a WMA and using that result to predict the impact of a potential wildfire event, the WMA evaluation platform enables planners to
determine and execute the most effective wildfire mitigation strategies." (Specification, [0039]).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible, and respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
The Examiner disagrees. The rejection does not rely on a human practically performing the claimed analysis on the recited volume of data. Rather, the claims recite the abstract idea of analyzing information, making predictions, and selecting a course of action, which fall within the mental process grouping. Using trained parameter values, machine learning, or large datasets merely automates the abstract idea and does not change its character. The size or complexity of the data does not remove the claimed limitations from the mental process category.
The additional elements merely use generic computing components as tools to perform the abstract analysis and do not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology. Instead the claims uses a computer to implement the abstract idea of evaluating wildfire data, predicting impact, and selecting WMAs. The claims are directed to a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights