DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to the application filed on 9 August 2023. Claims 1-9 are pending and presented for examination.
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 26 August 2025. Claim 3 has been cancelled, claims 1-2, 4, and 6 have been amended, and claims 10-13 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
Applicant’s amendment induces rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, as below.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner places new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that the term “newly constructed” at claim 1 (the second-to-last line) apparently includes or means a facility that would need to be built or upgraded. See, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0043, “The newly constructed facility site may be an emergency care facility site that needs to be newly constructed” and 0083, “existing emergency care facility sites and proposed newly constructed facility sites” – as indicating proposed or needing to be built – and since “cij is the cost of constructing or upgrading facilities at cij”, this construction or building apparently includes upgrading an existing facility.
The Examiner notes that claim 9 recites “an improved multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm”; however, the description does not describe a simulated annealing algorithm, it merely mentions the use thereof (see, e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0046, 0129, 0130, 0132, and 0136), and does not provide any indication of how or why the simulated annealing algorithm is, or could be, considered “improved” (other than Applicant’s label of it as “improved”). Therefore, the “improved multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm” is being interpreted as merely a simulated annealing algorithm with objectives.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining a formular corresponding to a first time satisfaction set” is recited at the 7th line, where “formular” should apparently be “formula”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “siting of emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages”, “obtaining a mountainous village spatial data information”, “determining a mountainous emergency care efficiency set”, “constructing a mountainous village emergency care model”, and several limitations based on these indications of a “mountainous village”. However, dependent claim 12 recites the siting of the facilities being “wherein the slope is less than 8°, and the elevation is less than 500 meters above sea level”. Therefore, based on the amendments, it is indefinite as to what is considered “mountainous” – for examples:
Netstate.com, screen captured 3 November 2025 from https://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_elevation_mean.htm, indicating the elevation information is from the 1996 printing of The World Almanac of the U.S.A., and that “The lowest point of a state that borders an ocean is almost always sea level” (at p. 1) and including the “Low point”, or minimum elevation of the 50 states in the United States.
The entirety of at least Kansas and Minnesota (per the Netstate.com screen capture) would be excluded from being “mountainous”, but they are generally considered midwestern plains states (but Minnesota includes the Sawtooth Mountains (with Eagle Mountain and the Lutsen Mountains ski area)).
However, this also indicates that many oceanside beach property is included as “mountainous” (since meeting the slope and elevation criteria) even though it would apparently be completely unreasonable to consider it “mountainous” (since it is the beach area – not cliffs or mountains abutting the ocean).
Apparently, or logically, all of New Orleans, Louisiana, would qualify as “mountainous” even though the maximum elevation of the entire state would barely be excluded and virtually none of New Orleans would reasonably be considered “mountainous” under any plain or ordinary meaning.
Death Valley, California, although it may have some mountains around it, would not itself (i.e., the valley or desert area known as Death Valley) reasonably be considered “mountainous”.
Various broadly described areas such as the Rocky Mountains (in the western U.S.), the Appalachian Mountains (on the eastern side of the U.S.), the Grand Tetons (in Wyoming) would apparently NOT be considered “mountainous”.
At least all of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and Montana – generally known for being “mountainous” would according to the claimed criteria, NOT qualify as “mountainous” since they are all entirely over 500 feet above sea level (per the Netstate.com screen capture).
Based on at least the above, Applicant’s amendment instigates the indefiniteness regarding what is, or is not, considered “mountainous” at claim 1.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2-13 are also indefinite.
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 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method, which is classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages, comprising: obtaining a mountainous village spatial data information, wherein the mountainous village spatial data information comprises: a settlement information corresponding to each settlement in the predetermined area, an emergency care facility site information corresponding to an emergency care facility site, and a road information corresponding to a road; determining a location corresponding to each of a plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the mountainous village spatial data information; determining a mountainous emergency care efficiency set corresponding to each settlement in the predetermined area based on the mountainous village spatial data information; constructing a mountainous village emergency care model based on locations corresponding to the plurality of alternative facility sites and the mountainous emergency care efficiency set corresponding to a settlement in the predetermined area; and determining road optimization information and a location and a number of newly constructed facility sites based on the mountainous village spatial data information and the mountainous village emergency care model; wherein the step of determining the location corresponding to each of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the mountainous village spatial data information comprises: dividing the predetermined area into a plurality of evaluation units; determining a plurality of influencing factors and weights corresponding to the plurality of influencing factors; the plurality of influencing factors comprising geographic factors including slope, elevation, and geologic hazard risk of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area; determining a plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units based on the mountainous village spatial data information and the plurality of influencing factors; determining an indicator impact score corresponding to each indicator of the plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units based on the plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units; determining a total indicator impact score corresponding to each of the plurality of evaluation units based on the weights corresponding to the plurality of influencing factors and the indicator impact score corresponding to each indicator of the plurality of indicators corresponding to each of the evaluation units in the plurality of evaluation units; and determining a location corresponding to each of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the total indicator impact score corresponding to the plurality of evaluation units.
The dependent claims (claims 2 and 4-13) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate obtaining and updating data (claim 2), a formula for the total indicator impact score (claim 4), determining a time satisfaction of transferring a patient/casualty to an alternative or emergency care site, and considering traffic conditions to determine an efficiency (claim 5), determining access roads and formulas for the time satisfaction according to time spent cost of each road (claim 6), a formula for the road vulnerability coefficient (claim 7), a formula for determining the emergency care efficiency (claim 8), determining the road optimization, location, and new facilities based on an algorithm (claim 9), the influencing factors include distance from a main road, density of roads, population density, the slope is less than 8°, and/or elevation is less than 500 meters above sea level (claims 10-12), and/or the road optimization information is information regarding a road that needs to be upgraded or newly constructed (claim 13).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of determining or calculating locations for medical facilities; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mathematical concepts (e.g., relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations) based on the determinations, calculations, modeling, formulas, and algorithms used;
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) based on the determining locations and sets of information, where the mathematical concepts appear possible to perform in the human mind, or with the use of pen/pencil and paper.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. There are no additional elements since there is no apparent recitation or description of using or requiring a computer or other such technology.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng Y, Zhang Y, Pan J. Optimization for Locating Emergency Medical Service Facilities: A Case Study for Health Planning from China. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 Apr 30;14:1791-1802. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S304475. PMID: 33967578; PMCID: PMC8097057. Downloaded 27 May 2025 from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8097057/ (hereinafter, Deng) in view of Trivedi, Ashish, A multi-criteria decision approach based on DEMATEL to assess determinants of shelter site selection in disaster response, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 31, 2018, pp. 722-728, ISSN 2212-4209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.019, Downloaded from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420918304424 on 4 November 2025 (hereinafter, Trivedi) in further view of Paul et al., Location-allocation planning of stockpiles for effective disaster mitigation, Ann Oper Res 196, 469–490 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-011-1052-7, downloaded from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-011-1052-7 on 3 November 2025, hereinafter, Paul).
Claim 1: Deng discloses a method of siting emergency medical service facilities, comprising:
obtaining spatial data information, wherein the spatial data information is information corresponding to a geographic situation within a predetermined area, and the spatial data information comprises: settlement information corresponding to each settlement in the predetermined area, emergency care facility site information corresponding to an emergency care facility site, and road information corresponding to a road (Deng at 1793, Study Area and Data as describing “the provincial capital city of Sichuan Province of China, Chengdu”, “supply side data were consisted of three parts: 1) the entry criteria of network hospitals; 2) the list of current network hospitals, and 3) the data of all healthcare facilities of Chengdu in 2017”, applying “LandScan 2017,24 the finest resolution global population gridded data (946 meters × 946 meters) provided by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory”, and “Road network was used to compute the shortest travel times from each demand point to candidate network hospitals” – See Fig. 1A, B, C at 1794);
determining a location corresponding to each of a plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the spatial data information (1793, “supply side data were consisted of three parts: 1) the entry criteria of network hospitals; 2) the list of current network hospitals, and 3) the data of all healthcare facilities of Chengdu in 2017” – See Fig. 1C at 1794);
determining a[n] emergency care efficiency set corresponding to each settlement in the predetermined area based on the spatial data information (1793 indicating types of roads and road speeds, Table 2 at 1796 indicating travel time, Table 3 at 1798 indicating Objectives and Strategies);
constructing a[n] emergency care model based on locations corresponding to the plurality of alternative facility sites and the emergency care efficiency set corresponding to a settlement in the predetermined area (1797-1798, Optimized Network Hospitals in Chengdu); and
determining road optimization information and a location and a number of newly constructed facility sites based on the spatial data information and the emergency care model (Table 2 at 1796, showing travel times currently and after facility upgrades);
wherein the step of determining the location corresponding to each of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the mountainous village spatial data information, comprising:
dividing the predetermined area into a plurality of evaluation units (Deng at 1796, Table 2, Districts as areas, travel time and population coverage as evaluation units);
determining a plurality of influencing factors and weights corresponding to the plurality of influencing factors (Deng at 1793, the road network, types of roads, and speeds for types of roads or walking paths);
determining a plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units based on the mountainous village spatial data information and the plurality of influencing factors (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage);
determining an indicator impact score corresponding to each indicator of the plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units based on the plurality of indicators corresponding to each evaluation unit of the plurality of evaluation units (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage);
determining a total indicator impact score corresponding to each of the plurality of evaluation units based on the weights corresponding to the plurality of influencing factors and the indicator impact score corresponding to each indicator of the plurality of indicators corresponding to each of the evaluation units in the plurality of evaluation units (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage); and
determining a location corresponding to each of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area based on the total indicator impact score corresponding to the plurality of evaluation units (Deng at 1796, Table 2, Districts, travel time and population coverage).
Deng, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose the facilities as in mountain villages or a mountainous village, and the plurality of influencing factors comprising geographic factors including slope, elevation, and geologic hazard risk of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area. Although Chengdu, as discussed in Deng, is apparently in, or at least nearby, a mountainous area – see the WorldAtlas entry at pertinent but not relied upon prior art below, and would, as such, apply to mountainous villages, the article does not explicitly indicate mountainous villages. Nevertheless, in case the mountainous village field of use and subjective phrasing would be considered to have weight, the Examiner notes that the same indications of travel times, distances, roadways, etc. can and would be able to be applied to the various descriptive designations for communities in the same manner and with the same predictable level of successful results. Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that the techniques for locating emergency medical facilities as indicated in Deng would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide adequate and equitable availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques for locating emergency medical facilities as indicated in Deng so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide adequate and equitable availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that the techniques for locating emergency medical facilities as indicated in Deng would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide adequate and equitable availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area as explained above.
Deng as modified, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose the plurality of influencing factors comprising geographic factors including slope, elevation, and geologic hazard risk of the plurality of alternative facility sites in the predetermined area. Trivedi, though, teaches shelter site selection criteria as including soil hardness, topography, slope, safety from landslides, distance from main roads, healthcare facilities, and transportation hubs, as well as availability of necessities like water and electricity (at p. 724, Table 1) and population considerations (at least at 724, § 3.6, 726-727). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to include the emergency facility site factors indicated in Trivedi would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locating emergency medical facilities as indicated in Deng with the emergency facility site location criteria of Trivedi so as to include the emergency facility site criteria indicated in Trivedi in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to include the emergency facility site factors indicated in Trivedi would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area as explained above.
Deng in view of Trivedi, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose elevation as a factor. Paul, though, teaches that “In this paper, we propose appropriate changes to the existing framework to address the first two delays and a generic model to address the third which determines the locations and capacities of stockpile sites that are optimal for a specific disaster. Specifically, our model takes into account the impact of disaster specific casualty characteristics, such as the severity and type of medical condition and the unique nature of each type of disaster, particularly with regard to advance warning and factors affecting damage” (at Abstract), including topological and/or geological factors or characteristics (at 473, 475, 476, 484), elevation (at 475, 476, 481, 484), transportation network capacity or capabilities (at least at 472, 476, 480), and population clusters (indicating density – and as related to transportation) (at least at 484, 486). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to also include the emergency facility site factors indicated in Paul would also be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques for locating emergency medical facilities as indicated in Deng in view of Trivedi so as to also include the emergency facility site factors indicated in Paul in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to include the emergency facility site factors indicated in Paul would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way so as to locate facilities for mountainous villages in order to provide safe availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area as explained above.
Claim 2: Deng in view of Trivedi in further view of Paul discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, wherein the obtaining mountainous village spatial data information, comprising:
obtaining historical spatial data information, wherein the historical spatial data information is recorded and corresponds to a geographic situation in the predetermined area under a closest moment of a current moment; obtaining, by means of a remote sensing device, a remote sensing image in the predetermined area under the current moment; and updating the historical spatial data information based on the remote sensing image to obtain the mountainous village spatial data information (Deng at 1792, “the shortest travel time from each demand point to EMS facilities using the nearest- neighbor method to assess the current access to EMS in Chengdu”, see Figs. 1A, B, C as remote sensing images).
Claim 5: Deng in view of Trivedi in further view of Paul discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, wherein the determining the mountainous emergency care efficiency set corresponding to each settlement in the predetermined area based on the mountainous village spatial data information, comprising:
determining a time satisfaction of transferring a patient or an casualty in a settlement to each facility site to obtain a time satisfaction set corresponding to the settlement based on the mountainous village spatial data information, wherein the facility site is an alternative facility site or an emergency care facility site (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage);
determining road vulnerability coefficients of road sections through which the patient or casualty in the settlement is transferred to each facility site to obtain a road vulnerability coefficient set corresponding to the settlement based on the information of hidden roads included in the mountainous village spatial data information (Deng at 1793, the road network, types of roads, and speeds for types of roads or walking paths);
determining traffic satisfaction of the road sections through which the patient or casualty in the settlement are transferred to each facility site to obtain a traffic satisfaction set corresponding to the settlement based on traffic condition information included in the mountainous village spatial data information (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage); and
determining a mountainous emergency care efficiency set corresponding to the settlement based on the time satisfaction set, the road vulnerability coefficient set and the traffic satisfaction set corresponding to the settlement (Deng at 1796, Table 2, travel time and population coverage).
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1-2 and 5 above since formulas for calculations can be expressed however one may choose, but may be granted little if any weight since they are considered to be ineligible for patenting. availability for medical treatment throughout an overall area as explained above.
Claim 10: Deng in view of Trivedi in further view of Paul discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, wherein the plurality of influencing factors comprise transportation factors including a distance from a main road and a density of roads (Trivedi and Paul as cited at the combination above and using the rationale as at the combination above).
Claim 11: Deng in view of Trivedi in further view of Paul discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, wherein the plurality of influencing factors comprise a population distribution factor, the population distribution factor is a population density (Trivedi and Paul as cited at the combination above and using the rationale as at the combination above).
Claim 13: Deng in view of Trivedi in further view of Paul discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 9, wherein the road optimization information is an information of a road that needs to be upgraded or newly constructed (Deng, Trivedi and Paul as cited at the combination above and using the rationale as at the combination above – the transportation and road network capacity and capabilities including upgrading or construction).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Baroudi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0295435, hereinafter Baroudi).
Claim 9: Deng discloses the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining road optimization information and the location and the number of newly constructed facility sites based on the mountainous village spatial data information and the mountainous village emergency care model comprises: determining the road optimization information and the location and number of newly constructed facility sites based on the mountainous village spatial data information and the mountainous village emergency care model, by means of an improved multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm. Baroudi, however, teaches that “each node sends information about its current location (possibly determined using a GPS receiver) and energy level to the BS. In addition to determining good clusters, the BS needs to ensure that the energy load is evenly distributed among all the nodes. To do this, the BS computes the average node energy, and whichever nodes have energy below this average cannot be cluster heads for the current round. Using the remaining nodes as possible cluster heads, the BS finds clusters using the simulated annealing algorithm to solve the NP-hard problem of finding optimal clusters” (Baroudi at 0043). Where Deng indicates their solution methods as “a typical NP problem” (Deng at 1795), the base system and/or methods of NP problem solutions as in Deng would be predictably improved or modified by the NP solution techniques indicated in Baroudi so as to yield the predictable result of applying an improved multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm so as to better or more effectively locate emergency medical service facilities. As such, the Examiner understands and finds that to use a simulated annealing algorithm is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to solve the NP problem indicated in Deng in order to better or more effectively locate emergency medical service facilities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the NP problem solution of Deng with the NP problem solution of Baroudi in order to that to use a simulated annealing algorithm so as to solve the NP problem indicated in Deng in order to better or more effectively locate emergency medical service facilities.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to use a simulated annealing algorithm is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to solve the NP problem indicated in Deng in order to better or more effectively locate emergency medical service facilities as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is indicated as allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 recites the method of siting emergency medical service facilities in mountain villages of claim 1, wherein the slope is less than 8°, and the elevation is less than 500 meters above sea level. Since this appears to fairly explicitly indicate that the emergency medical facilities that would service mountain villages cannot apparently be in a mountainous area, but appear to limit the location(s) to low-elevation and relatively level slopes (the tangent of an 8° angle is approximately 0.14054, which indicates a 14 foot elevation change for a 100 foot change of position, i.e., a 14 ft. rise to a 100 ft. run – the Examiner’s gently sloping front yard has approximately a 6 ft. rise for a 40 ft. run, which is 0.15 and greater than 8°). Since, for example, ocean front beaches would quite often qualify under the claimed criteria as being on/at a “mountain”, and no actual mountain terrain would qualify, it does not appear reasonable to combine art so as to arrive at a combination for siting emergency medical service facilities “in mountain villages” at a location that apparently excludes mountainous terrain, but includes areas or terrain that may be required to be vast distances from the mountain villages themselves.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the claim objections and 112 rejections (Remarks at 8-9); however, these have been withdrawn based on the amendment. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the 101 rejection (Id. at 9-12), first repeating the entirety of claim 1 (Id. at 9-10), then arguing that “the method is applied in siting emergency medical service facilities in a specific area, that is mountain villages with complex topography” (Id. at 10). However, claim 12 indicates that the scope of the claim to “mountain villages” includes many, many locations that have no relation to mountains or mountainous terrain – the Sahara desert is apparently considered to encompass “mountain villages” since it is likely or apparently within 500 feet of sea level and would appear to have less than an 8° slope. Most ocean-front beaches would qualify as “mountain villages” per the breadth included – even if they have no relation to mountains. Furthermore, there is no indication or limitation related to complex topography at the claims.
Applicant then argues that “there is a clear application scenario in the art that has a technical problem to be solved” (Id. at 11); however, this is NOT a technical problem – this is, if anything, an infrastructure planning issue and is not related to technology. A person can look up or access the data required and make the determinations and calculations indicated by claim 1 – in fact, claim 1 does not appear to recite or indicate any use of any technology at all.
Applicant then argues that “The solution defined in the claim 1 improves the existing method for selecting the location of emergency care service facility.(Id. at 12). However, the Examiner notes that even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting (SAP v. Investpic, slip op at p. 2, line 22 – p. 3, line 13, 898 F.3d 1161, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract (Id., slip op. at p. 10, lines 18-24, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167).
Applicant then argues the 103 rejections (Remarks at 12-15)., alleging that the amendment adding slope, elevation, and geologic hazard risk factors overcomes the art (Id. at 13). However, this amending necessitates new grounds of rejection – please see the current rejections above.
Applicant then argues claim 5, indicating the “road vulnerability coefficients of road sections … as well as the traffic satisfaction of the road sections” as not being met. However, the Examiner notes that there is no explanation regarding what road vulnerability and/or traffic satisfaction are measuring. These terms are mentioned in the specification without explanation regarding what they mean. Therefore, the breadth of road vulnerability and traffic satisfaction appear to include vulnerability to slow downs in time for travel and traffic satisfaction also appears to relate to satisfying travel times. If there is or was some other meaning, it does not appear to be apparent based on the light of the specification. As such, the indications related to travel times in Deng appears to meet the limitations based on the light of the specification.
Applicant then argues claim 12; however, this claim is indicated as allowable over the prior art since, as explained above, the “mountain villages” are apparently incongruous with any apparent definition of what a mountain may be – a fishing boat in the ocean appears to qualify as a “mountain village” according to claim 12. Therefore, the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues added claim 13 – please see the current rejections above regarding claim 13.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu Y, Du Q, Tian F, Ren F, Liang S, Chen Y. Location optimization using a hierarchical location-allocation model for trauma centers in Shenzhen, China. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 2016;5(10):190. doi:10.3390/ijgi5100190, downloaded 27 May 2025 from https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/5/10/190, indicating trauma center locating solutions for Shenzen, China.
NP-complete problem, Britannica.com, downloaded 28 May 2025 from https://www.britannica.com/science/NP-complete-problem, indicating that “A problem is called NP (nondeterministic polynomial) if its solution can be guessed and verified in polynomial time; nondeterministic means that no particular rule is followed to make the guess.” (at p. 1).
Chengdu – The Capital Of Sichuan Province, from WorldAtlas, downloaded 28 May 2025 from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-capital-of-the-sichuan-province-of-china.html, indicating that the urban area of “Chengdu is situated on the vast Chengdu Plain”, but has elevations that range from 1,240 ft. to 17,598 ft.
Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospital and Health Care Facilities, 2001 Edition, American Institute of Architects Academy of Architecture for Health, downloaded 3 November 2025 from https://www.fgiguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2001guidelines.pdf, dated 2001, indicating guidelines for the design and construction of various types of healthcare facilities.
Fardi et al., Location selection criteria for field hospitals: A systematic review. Health Promot Perspect. 2022 Aug 20;12(2):131-140. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2022.17. PMID: 36276411; PMCID: PMC9508390. Downloaded 3 November 2025 from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9508390/. The Examiner noting that the article was written and received by 22 November 2021 and includes a variety of other sources indicating location selection criteria.
Kılcı et al., Locating temporary shelter areas after an earthquake: A case for Turkey, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 243, Iss. 1, 2015, pp. 323-332, ISSN 0377-2217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.11.035. Downloaded from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714009588 on 3 November 2025, indicating criteria considered for shelter locations as including transportation, healthcare, topography, type and slope of terrain, and electrical and sanitary system availability (at 324-325).
Ultimate Kilimanjaro, Hill vs. Mountain: What’s the Difference?, downloaded from https://www.ultimatekilimanjaro.com/hill-vs-mountain-whats-the-difference/ on 3 November 2025, indicating “Hills have an elevation usually below 2,000 feet (610 meters)”, and “Mountains have an elevation usually above 2,000 feet (610 meters)” (at p. 1), but that “Historically, the distinction between a hill and a mountain was less about exact measurements and more about general perception and local usage” (at p. 2), where the above indications are apparently based on United Kingdom usage, where “In the United States, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) does not have an official definition distinguishing hills from mountains. Commonly, a height of 1,000 feet (305 meters) has been mentioned informally, but this is not universally applied” (Id.).
Rosenberg, Matt. "Differences Between Hills and Mountains." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20210429174528/https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-hill-and-mountain-4071583 via the Archive.org WayBack Machine on 3 November 2025, indicating that “According to the USGS, up until the 1920s, the British Ordnance Survey defined a mountain as a geographic feature rising higher than 1,000 feet (304 meters.) The United States followed suit and defined a mountain as having a local relief higher than 1,000 feet. This definition, however, was dropped in the late 1970s” (at p. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights