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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 10/24/2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 17-18, 21 and 23 have been amended. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 24-25 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10-18, 21, and 23-25 are currently pending.
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 12 and 17-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 12, and 17, the applicant claims “type of the ground surface”, and “type of the sensor information”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the term “type”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the type of the ground surface includes at least one of a water surface, mud, dry soil, grassland, forest, farmland, and snow cover (as recited in claim 13) and the type of sensor information may include at least one of information related to a moving object (e.g., a vehicle 50 or a drone).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-7, 10-18, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (claims 1, 21, and 23) recite(s) specifying an area where a change of ground surface is to be acquired, acquiring the change of ground surface, determining an occurrence of a disaster, determining a type of disaster and determining degree of the disaster.
The limitations of specifying an area where a change of ground surface is to be acquired, acquiring the change of ground surface, determining an occurrence of a disaster, determining a type of disaster and determining degree of the disaster, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “specifying, acquiring, and determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking what area to consider to look at the change in surface data to determine whether a disaster has occurred and determine its type and severity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a memory, a processor and a computer to perform the recited steps. Said elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory, a processor, and a computer to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 10-18, and 24-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-7, 10-18, and 24-25 do not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 10-18, and 24-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-18, 21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita WO 2021/084698 A1 (Morita was provided by the applicant in IDS dated 12/21/2023 and the examiner has provided an English translation on 07/24/2025 and relying upon, hence Morita) in view of Arakawa JP 2016094084A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Arakawa).
In re claims 1, 21, and 23, Morita discloses an analysis device capable of analyzing sensor information on the basis of a priority order corresponding to an analysis content (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor performing operations (Fig.1), the operations comprising: specifying an area where a change of ground surface is to be acquired using sensor information acquired from a sensor information acquisition device (Pages 2-3, underlined portion); acquiring the change of ground surface, which is a result of analysis using a measurement result acquired by a ground surface measurement device, in the area (Pages 2-3 and 4, underlined portions); and determining an occurrence of a disaster in the area using the change of ground surface (Pages 4-5, underlined portions), wherein the sensor information is an image (Page 2, “SAR image”), the disaster is a flood or a mudslide (Fig.9, Page 10 “flood”), and the operations further comprise: determining a type of the disaster using at least one of the sensor information and the change of ground surface (Page 2, underlined portion, and Page 5, last paragraph “The analysis unit 16 analyzes the sensor information for each section based on the priority received from the priority determination unit 14. For example, the analysis unit 16 extracts a change region on the surface of the earth using the sensor information stored in the processing information storage unit 13 for each section based on the priority order received from the priority determination unit 14”), and determining a degree of the disaster using the image related to the road (Pages 10-11, “In FIGS. 9 and 10, the predicted value of the inundation depth of flood damage is shown as the predicted value of damage in the event of a disaster”)
However, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the sensor information is an image related to a road acquired from a dashcam
Nevertheless, Arakawa discloses an on-vehicle device capable of controlling a vehicle according to a weather condition and performing safe driving (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the sensor information is an image related to a road acquired from a dashcam (Paragraph 0014)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Morita reference to include a camera mounted in front of the vehicle that outputs an image of the front of the vehicle, as taught by Arakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to analyzes the image of the camera to determine whether the road surface in front of the vehicle is dry or wet (Arakawa, Paragraph 0014).
In re claim 2, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the sensor information includes at least one of information related to a moving object on which the sensor information acquisition device is mounted and information related to a structure on which the moving object travels (Pages 3-5, underlined portions)
In re claim 3, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the structure is the road, and the moving object is a vehicle traveling on the road (Pages 3-5, underlined portions)
In re claim 6, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining the occurrence of the disaster using the sensor information (Pages 3-5, underlined portions)
In re claim 7, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining a range of the disaster using at least one of the sensor information and the change of ground surface (Page 9, underlined portions)
In re claim 10, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining an earthquake as the type of the disaster (Pages 2, and 10-11, underlined portions)
In re claim 12, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: using a type of the ground surface (Page 11, underlined portion)
In re claim 13, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the type of the ground surface includes at least one of a water surface, mud, dry soil, grassland, forest, farmland, and snow cover (Page 11, underlined portion)
In re claim 14, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: when determining that the disaster has occurred, notifying information related to the disaster that has occurred (Pages 2-4, underlined portions)
In re claim 15, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a destination to which the information related to the disaster is notified using the sensor information (Page 6, underlined portion)
In re claim 16, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: notifying at least one of the sensor information and the change of ground surface (Pages 2-3, underlines portions)
In re claim 17, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: acquiring the sensor information, and switching a type of the sensor information to be acquired, using the sensor information (Page 9, first underlined paragraph)
In re claim 18, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: acquiring the sensor information to be used in determining the occurrence of the disaster according to an instruction, and determining the occurrence of the disaster using the sensor information (Pages 2-5 underlined portions)
In re claim 24, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: acquiring the measurement result of the area specified using the sensor information from the ground surface measurement device; and analyzing the change of ground surface using the measurement result (Page 2, underlined section “the analysis device 1 of the present embodiment is a device that analyzes sensor information. The sensor information is information obtained by observing the sensor)
In re claim 25, Morita teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: acquiring the image from a range in which the change of ground surface exceeds a predetermined threshold; and determining the occurrence of the disaster using the image around the range in which the change of ground surface exceeds the predetermined threshold (Page 5, “The analysis unit 16 extracts, for example, a change region based on the difference between the sensor information before the occurrence of a disaster and the sensor information after the occurrence of a disaster. For example, the analysis unit 16 extracts a region in which the above difference is equal to or greater than a threshold value as a change region”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita and Arakawa, and further in view of Pal US 2019/0208443 A1 (hence Pal).
In re claim 4, Morita discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the sensor information includes at least one of a position and a traveling direction of the moving object on which the sensor information acquisition device is mounted, and the operations further comprise: specifying the area using at least one of the position and the traveling direction of the moving object
Nevertheless, Pal discloses devices and methods that dynamically reroute data between satellite and terrestrial networks (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the sensor information includes at least one of a position and a traveling direction of the moving object on which the sensor information acquisition device is mounted, and the operations further comprise: specifying the area using at least one of the position and the traveling direction of the moving object (Paragraph 0051)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Morita reference to include information indicating the current location, speed, and heading of the automobile, as taught by Pal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to predict what areas will the vehicle be in based on the collected values (Pal, Paragraph 0051).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita and Arakawa, and further in view of Rafferty et al US 2020/0247426 A1 (hence Rafferty).
In re claim 5, Morita discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: specifying the area as when a traffic jam is determined using the sensor information
Nevertheless, Rafferty discloses systems and methods for automatically adjusting a vehicle driving mode, and more specifically, to systems and methods for automatically adjusting a vehicle driving mode based on detected road characteristics (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: specifying the area as when a traffic jam is determined using the sensor information (Paragraph 0048)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Morita reference to include information indicating traffic conditions, as taught by Rafferty, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to utilize other systems that may connect to one or more external systems or networks in order to determine environmental conditions (Rafferty, Paragraph 0048).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita and Arakawa, and further in view of Yu et al US 2014/0069191 A1 (hence Yu).
In re claim 11, Morita discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining at least one of a magnitude and a seismic source of the earthquake using at least one of the sensor information and the change of ground surface
Nevertheless, Yu discloses a sensor, particularly to an accelerometer (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining at least one of a magnitude and a seismic source of the earthquake using at least one of the sensor information and the change of ground surface (Paragraph 0003)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Morita reference to include the accelerometer, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to measure a magnitude of an earthquake and gathering seismic data (Yu, Paragraph 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claims are believed to be directed to the kind of patent eligible technical improvements, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims here are not similar to the claims found eligible in Enfish. In Enfish, the claims were specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database. Accordingly, the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. The claims here, in contrast, are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. While the claimed device and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing data, the speed and capacity increase come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. Furthermore, a review of at least pages 1-11 does not show what the improvement computer functionality is or how it is captured (Note that arguments presented on page 13 are illegible. The applicant keeps referring to Ex Parte Desjardins in his arguments. The underlying patent application, filed by Google, involved a method for training a machine learning model to perform multiple tasks sequentially while protecting knowledge about previous tasks. It is not clear to the examiner what the relevancy is the current claims and “training a machine learning model to perform multiple tasks sequentially”. Artificial intelligence AI and machine learning ML are not even recited in the claims.
With respect to applicant’s argument/remarks that nothing in the specification suggests that any of the claim features, much less the claim as a whole, should be interpreted to mean anything occurring as a mental process, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, a user can mentally judge or determine a type and severity of a disaster using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion based on the collected data and that falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-18, 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Morita and Arakawa as recited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669