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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites mathematical abstractions and mental processes.
generating, via at least one processor of a computer system using a first hydrology model for a predefined hydrologic unit, a runoff volumetric forecast;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a predicted runoff volumetric forecast.
executing, via the at least one processor, a transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit, resulting in a first hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a hydrograph.
executing, via the at least one processor, the transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric report, resulting in a second hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the transport model to produce a second hydrograph.
generating, via the at least one processor, a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the flow volumetric forecast to produce a third hydrograph.
comparing, via the at least one processor, the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with the with the aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation and observation to compare hydrographs to make a correction matrix.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
least one processor
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is a generic computer component to apply the abstract idea.
computer system
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
receiving, at the computer system, a flow volumetric report for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
receiving, at the computer system, a flow volumetric forecast for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
modifying, via the at least one processor, the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This clause merely instructs that the modification be applied by generic computer components and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to multiple mathematical abstractions and mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 2-4:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying further results and features of the hydrograph comparison and model correction. They specify that the comparison also produces a long term correction matrix (claim 2), that a second level hydrology model is modified based on the long term correction matrix (claim 3), and that the comparison includes identifying at least one of a distinct peak water level, a distinct breadth of water level, or a distinct water retreat time period within the hydrographs (claim 4). Thus, the claims remain as mathematical abstractions and mental processes. Performing the modification with a processor amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 5-7:
These claims merely add pre solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g) or they narrow the input data type and link the field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h). They specify that the flow volumetric report is based on sensor data collected from multiple sensors (claim 5), that the first and second hydrographs are continuous predictions and the second hydrographs is periodic according to when the sensor data is collected (claim 6), and that the hydrologic unit is a HUC 8 (claim 7). The sensors are not positively recited and are not operated by the method; they only identify the source of the data received. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “system” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites mathematical abstractions and mental processes.
generating, using a first hydrology model for a predefined hydrologic unit, a runoff volumetric forecast;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a predicted runoff volumetric forecast.
executing a transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit, resulting in a first hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a hydrograph.
executing the transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric report, resulting in a second hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the transport model to produce a second hydrograph.
generating a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the flow volumetric forecast to produce a third hydrograph.
comparing the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with the with the aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation and observation to compare hydrographs to make a correction matrix.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
at least one processor
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
receiving a flow volumetric report for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
receiving a flow volumetric forecast for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
modifying the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This clause merely instructs that the modification be applied by generic computer components and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 8 is directed to multiple mathematical abstractions and mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 9-11:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying further results and features of the hydrograph comparison and model correction. They specify that the comparison also produces a long term correction matrix (claim 9), that a second level hydrology model is modified based on the long term correction matrix (claim 10), and that the comparison includes identifying at least one of a distinct peak water level, a distinct breadth of water level, or a distinct water retreat time period within the hydrographs (claim 11). Thus, the claims remain as mathematical abstractions and mental processes. Performing the modification with a processor and memory amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 12-14:
These claims merely add pre solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g) or they narrow the input data type and link the field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h). They specify that the flow volumetric report is based on sensor data collected from multiple sensors (claim 12), that the first and second hydrographs are continuous predictions and the second hydrographs is periodic according to when the sensor data is collected (claim 13), and that the hydrologic unit is a HUC 8 (claim 14). The sensors are not positively recited and are not operated by the system; they only identify the source of the data received. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” which is a manufacture.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites mathematical abstractions and mental processes.
generating, using a first hydrology model for a predefined hydrologic unit, a runoff volumetric forecast;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a predicted runoff volumetric forecast.
executing a transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit, resulting in a first hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the model to produce a hydrograph.
executing the transport model of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric report, resulting in a second hydrograph;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the transport model to produce a second hydrograph.
generating a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input;
This is a mathematical abstraction that can be a calculation, relationship, or equation / formula. In this case, performing calculations using the flow volumetric forecast to produce a third hydrograph.
comparing the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and
This describes an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that can be done in the mind or with the with the aid of pen and paper. In this case an evaluation and observation to compare hydrographs to make a correction matrix.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
at least one processor
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This is generic computer components to apply the abstract idea.
receiving a flow volumetric report for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
receiving a flow volumetric forecast for the predefined hydrologic unit;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is mere data gathering using generic computer components.
modifying the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix.
MPEP 2106.05(f) – This clause merely instructs that the modification be applied by generic computer components and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception.
Conclusion: Claim 15 is directed to multiple mathematical abstractions and mental processes, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 16-18:
These claims merely narrow the abstract idea by specifying further results and features of the hydrograph comparison and model correction. They specify that the comparison also produces a long term correction matrix (claim 16), that a second level hydrology model is modified based on the long term correction matrix (claim 17), and that the comparison includes identifying at least one of a distinct peak water level, a distinct breadth of water level, or a distinct water retreat time period within the hydrographs (claim 18). Thus, the claims remain as mathematical abstractions and mental processes. Performing the modification with a processor and memory amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Regarding Claims 19-20:
These claims merely add pre solution data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g) or they narrow the input data type and link the field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h). They specify that the flow volumetric report is based on sensor data collected from multiple sensors (claim 12), and that the first and second hydrographs are continuous predictions and the second hydrographs is periodic according to when the sensor data is collected (claim 13). The sensors are not positively recited and are not operated by the medium; they only identify the source of the data received. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not resolve the issues from the claims they depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of SEO et al. “Assessment of Streamflow Predictions Generated Using Multimodel and Multiprecipitation Product Forcing”, in view of VIEUX et al. US 7136756 B1, and in view of SUN et al. “A graph neural network approach to basin-scale river network learning: The role of physics-based connectivity and data fusion”, instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
SEO et al. “Assessment of Streamflow Predictions Generated Using Multimodel and Multiprecipitation Product Forcing” teaches generating model runoff hydrographs for a gauged basin and receiving gauge streamflow.
VIEUX et al. US 7136756 B1 teaches running a routing model with simulated flows set equal to measured gauge flows.
SUN et al. “A graph neural network approach to basin-scale river network learning: The role of physics-based connectivity and data fusion” teaches downloading National Weather Model stream flow data and using it as input to generate stream flow predictions for a water shed.
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating, via the at least one processor, a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input; comparing, via the at least one processor, the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and modifying, via the at least one processor, the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 2-7 would be allowable for depending from claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 8, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input; comparing the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and modifying the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 9-14 would be allowable for depending from claim 8 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 15, none of the prior art on record, either alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “generating a third hydrograph of the predefined hydrologic unit using the flow volumetric forecast as input; comparing the first hydrograph, the second hydrograph, and the third hydrograph to one another, resulting in a short term correction matrix; and modifying the first hydrology model based on the short term correction matrix..”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 16-20 would be allowable for depending from claim 15 if the independent claim was rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11519146B2 teaches a method that includes operations for accessing weather information for a geographical region divided into cells and for generating runoff data based on the weather information. The runoff data includes a predicted amount of free-running water on a surface of each cell of the region.
US11348014B2 teaches methods and systems to evaluate hydrologic risk in each area and analyzes the consequences of future precipitations using neural network assisted simulation. Hydrographs calculated for each sub-basin, streams and rivers in the basin simulates the behavior of the basin under different scenarios corresponding to different types of management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN, can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
