DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner's Note
2. Examiner has taken note that claim 6 has been added by the Applicant, and has considered this new claim below.
Claim Objections
3. Previous objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed May 19, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-5 are to a process and claim 6 is to another process. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts:
1. A calculation method for a development process of a breach at a dike, comprising the following steps:
step 1: a dike breach flow is calculated according to a broad crested weir as calculated by Formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
wherein:
μ— a breach flow coefficient, as a dimensionless number;
Q—the dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—a width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is a water depth of the breach, in m, when a water level outside the dike is lower than a bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between a river water level and the bottom elevation of the breach; when the water level outside the dike is not lower than the bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between the river water level and a water depth outside the dike;
step 2: based on the dike breach flow calculated in step 1, a discharge per unit width of the breach is calculated by Formula (2):
q
u
n
i
t
=
Q
B
(2)
wherein:
qunit—the discharge per unit width of the breach, in m2/s;
step 3: based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, calculation formulas of a lateral widening rate and a vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established;
step 4: based on the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach calculated in step 3, a lateral widening development process and a vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively; and based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area.
6. A calculation method for a development process of a breach at a dike, comprising the following steps:
step 1: a dike breach flow is calculated according to a broad crested weir as calculated by Formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
wherein:
μ— a breach flow coefficient, as a dimensionless number;
Q—the dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—a width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is a water depth of the breach, in m, when a water level outside the dike is lower than a bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between a river water level and the bottom elevation of the breach; when the water level outside the dike is not lower than the bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between the river water level and a water depth outside the dike;
step 2: based on the dike breach flow calculated in step 1, a discharge per unit width of the breach is calculated by Formula (2):
q
u
n
i
t
=
Q
B
(2)
wherein:
qunit—the discharge per unit width of the breach, in m2/s;
step 3: based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, calculation formulas of a lateral widening rate and a vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established;
step 4: based on the lateral widening rate and the vertical downcutting rate of the breach calculated in step 3, a lateral widening development process and a vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively; and based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to an alerting device and mobile terminals of people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area.
The bolded limitations above amount to a recitation of mathematical concepts to carry out a series of mathematical calculations. While some of the calculations are explicitly defined by mathematical equations and variables such as the calculations in step 1 and step 2 (as defined by Formula (1) and Formula (2) respectively), the other calculations in steps 3 and 4 are described in words. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Therefore the additional limitations of "based on the discharge per unit width of the breach calculated in step 2, calculation formulas of a lateral widening rate and a vertical downcutting rate of the breach are established" and "based on the lateral widening rate and a vertical downcutting rate of the breach calculated in step 3, a lateral widening development process and a vertical downcutting development process of the breach are calculated respectively" are considered as words serving the same purpose as a formula. Taken as a whole, the independent claims appear to recite a series of mathematical calculations using various formulas to calculate multiple parameters of interest, and thus contain a recitation of an abstract idea.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the limitations of " based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area" and " based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to an alerting device and mobile terminals of people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area," amount to insignificant post-solution activity to output a result of the calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC v. ALSTOM S.A., CAFC slip op. 2015-1778 (August 1, 2016)[hereinafter “EPG”], the Court held “systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results” ineligible under 35 USC 101. In so holding, the Court explained: "Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 2). Similarly, generating an early warning information amounts to an informational-based output for people to recognize a desirable informational-based result, but such information amounts to post-solution tangential reporting of the calculations, and does not provide any further physically-based integration into improving the operation of a machine, dike development process, or other technical process.
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are analyzed to determine if it recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. These limitations have been identified and are also underlined above, and are not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") because: (1) the limitations of " based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area" and " based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to an alerting device and mobile terminals of people in a potential inundation area corresponding to the breach, to alert the people to evacuate the potential inundation area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the potential inundation area," amount to insignificant post-solution activity to output a result of the calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As explained above, the generating of early warning information that is sent to people or to an alerting device and mobile terminals (displays) of people, amount to post-solution outputting activity that is tangential to the calculations themselves. In other words, an informational-based output result is reported, without any applied physical improvements or changes to a technology or technical process to add something significantly more than merely the abstract idea calculations themselves.
Dependent claims 2-5 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as they explicitly recite further mathematical equations and variables used to carry out the calculations.
5. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining any measured sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated parameters to drive a physical transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Previous rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment filed May 19, 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wang (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0061970) fails to anticipate or render obvious a calculation method for a development process of a breach at a dike, comprising the following steps: step 1: a dike breach flow is calculated according to a broad crested weir flow as calculated by Formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
wherein:
μ—a breach flow coefficient, as dimensionless number;
Q—the dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—a width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is a water depth of the breach, in m, when a water level outside the dike is lower than a bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between a river water level and the bottom elevation of the breach; when the water level outside the dike is not lower than the bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between the river water level and a water depth outside the dike; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wang (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0061970) fails to anticipate or render obvious a calculation method for a development process of a breach at a dike, comprising the following steps: step 1: a dike breach flow is calculated according to a broad crested weir flow as calculated by Formula (1):
Q
=
μ
B
2
g
h
1.5
(1)
wherein:
μ—a breach flow coefficient, as dimensionless number;
Q—the dike breach flow, in m3/s;
B—a width of the water surface at the breach, in m;
h is a water depth of the breach, in m, when a water level outside the dike is lower than a bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between a river water level and the bottom elevation of the breach; when the water level outside the dike is not lower than the bottom elevation of the breach, the water depth of the breach is a difference between the river water level and a water depth outside the dike; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
9. Dependent claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that the amendments to claim 1 recites additional elements in combination with the judicial exception that provide actual improvements to the field of flood disaster prevention (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 7 last paragraph to pg. 8 paragraph 1). Applicant argues that in the related art, the dike breach development prediction lacks accuracy and universality, and that compared with the prior art, the discharge per unit width can more clearly explain the strength of hydrodynamic on sediment, avoid the influence of breach size on the hydrodynamic action of breach in different stages, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the breach development prediction (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 8 paragraphs 2-3). Applicant argues that the formulas are suitable for different inflow test conditions, thus ensuring the universality of the breach development prediction, and that compared with the methods in the prior art, the claimed method is more accurate and universal and provides key information for prediction of flood propagation (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 8 paragraphs 3-4). Applicant argues that "based on the lateral widening development process and the vertical downcutting development process, early warning information is generated and sent to people in an area corresponding to the breach to alert the people to evacuate the area, to thereby reduce a threat to life caused by flooding in the area" which provides actual improvements to the field of flood disaster prevention (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 8 paragraph 4).
12. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). An improved sequence of abstract data mathematical steps to calculate a lateral widening development process variable and vertical downcutting development process variable is still an abstract idea, just as an improved formula for calculating an improved value is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the features such as more accuracy and universality of breach development prediction still amount to features of the abstract idea mathematical calculations, which is not sufficient to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection. The new claim amendments of sending early warning information to alert people to evacuate the area, amounts to insignificant post-solution outputting activity to report the results of the calculation, and does not provide an integration into a practical application or an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The end result is still an abstract informational-based output, that while useful and desirable, does not change its character as information within the realm of abstract ideas. "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 7). Additional limitations (beyond mere outputting of data) are needed to describe a practical application using the calculated development process and vertical downcutting development process (such as to physically control or change the operation of a machine, or how a dike development is carried out), in order to demonstrate an applied improvement to a technology or technical process.
13. Applicant further argues in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections that the claimed method in amended claim 1 applies mathematical relationships to model a real-world physical process and produces technically meaningful outputs that directly support flood disaster mitigation (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 9 paragraph 1). Applicant argues that the inputs to the claimed method are physical measurement parameters, and the claimed method simulates a real physical development process where the outputs of the claimed method closely match physical measurement data (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 5/19/2026, pg. 9 paragraph 2). Applicant argues that similarly to Diamond v. Diehr (1981), the mathematical relationships are integrated into the simulation of a real physical process: the time-dependent evolution of a dike breach (see Applicant's Arguments/Remarks 05/19/2026, pg. 9 paragraph 3).
14. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that a mathematically-based model is still an "abstract" idea. Simulating or modeling a real-world physical process by equations is still an abstract idea, even if it is based on physical measurement parameters. The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it" (see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980). For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered and based on real world parameters, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were "‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection" (see Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978).
An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). In Diamond v. Diehr, the claims do more than merely describe an improved calculation for a real-world rubber curing time, but using the calculation result to operate a rubber molding press to provide an integration into a practical application (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 187, 209 USPQ at 7, 8.). No such further integration into a practical application to control/alter a physical process or technology is described in the present claims, as the claims in the present application merely calculate an improved set of simulation/calculation values to end at an informational-based output result (without any further physical application).
15. Applicant makes similar arguments regarding dependent claims 2-5 that depend from claim 1, and also new claim 6, and submits that they are also eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Applicant's Arguments/Remrkars 5/19/2026, pg. 10 paragraph 1 and pg. 10 last paragraph-pg. 10 paragraph 1). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the responses given above for claim 1 in sections 12 and 14 to also address these arguments.
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
PAUL D. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 7/17/2026
Prosecution Insights