DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, in the reply filed on 10/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 are pending, while claims 4 and 5 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-3 have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-4 contain shaded grey and black areas, illegible text, and/or lines that are not uniformly thick and well defined. See MPEP §608.02, 37 CFR 1.84 (I), and 37 CFR 1.84 (m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1 21 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1-3 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite oil spill risk prediction, including selecting, constructing, predicting and evaluating steps.
The limitations of selecting, constructing, predicting and evaluating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite selecting a potential oil spill accident site, and analyzing the oil spill pollution probability through a random statistical simulation method; based on the environmental sensitivity index, constructing a coastal zone ecological sensitivity evaluation index system based on the oil spill risk from three aspects of coastal classification, biological resources and human utilization resources; and predicting and evaluating the oil spill risk of the region by combining the oil spill pollution probability and the coastal zone ecological sensitivity evaluation index system.
That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, which there are none here, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims fail to include any computer components. Accordingly, there is no additional element does that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because there is no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 claims fail to include any computer components.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 further describe selecting a potential oil spill accident site, and analyzing the oil spill pollution probability and constructing a coastal zone ecological sensitivity evaluation index system. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims fail to include any computer components.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20240140561 A1).
As per claim 1, Lee et al disclose an oil spill risk prediction method based on an environmental sensitivity index (i.e., assessing a damage risk relating to oil spill dispersion from a sunken ship to predict oil spill dispersion, ¶ 0014), comprising the following steps:
step 1, selecting a potential oil spill accident site, and analyzing the oil spill pollution probability through a random statistical simulation method (i.e., determine a possibility of a spill accident by statistical analysis, the determination comprising a step of building a model by randomly selecting a spill time in the target sea area and analyzing seafloor topography and seawater temperature characteristics, a step of building a model by analyzing wind characteristics, and a step of building a model by analyzing seawater flow characteristics; predict oil spill dispersion in a surrounding sea area by repeatedly performing simulations, ¶ 0017);
step 2, based on the environmental sensitivity index, constructing a coastal zone ecological sensitivity evaluation index system based on the oil spill risk from three aspects of coastal classification, biological resources and human utilization resources (i.e., first assessment step of creating a reference table by ranking damage risk levels for damage probabilities and times of first arrival at a coastline based on the built model and proposing assessment criteria for the damage risk of the oil spill according to the levels; and second assessment step of creating a reference table by ranking damage risk levels for the coastline length and the sea area size to be damaged and proposing assessment criteria for the oil spill damage risk according to the levels, ¶ 0015); and
step 3, predicting and evaluating the oil spill risk of the region by combining the oil spill pollution probability and the coastal zone ecological sensitivity evaluation index system (i.e., possibility of a spill in the target sea area is determined by statistically analyzing past sinking and oil spill accidents in S100, oil spill dispersion in a surrounding sea area is predicted under a variety of occurrence conditions in S200, and an oil spill damage risk for the surrounding sea area is assessed by analyzing the predicted oil spill dispersion in S300, ¶ 0062, wherein assessing the oil spill damage risk for the surrounding sea area includes step S310 of creating a reference table by ranking damage risk levels for damage probabilities and times of first arrival at the coastline through the built model and proposing assessment criteria for the oil spill damage risk according to the levels. In addition, the step S300 includes step S320 of creating a reference table by ranking damage risk levels for the coastline length and the sea area size to be damaged and proposing assessment criteria for the oil spill damage risk according to the levels, ¶¶ 0115-0116).
As per claim 3, Lee et al disclose the coastline classification are coastline environment sensitivity grading indices divided by certain criteria according to the sensitivity degree of the coastline to oil pollution, retention characteristics of oil pollution and difficulty degree of oil pollution removal (i.e., the step S300 includes step S320 of creating a reference table by ranking damage risk levels for the coastline length and the sea area size to be damaged and proposing assessment criteria for the oil spill damage risk according to the levels, ¶ 0116); the biological resources comprise animals, rare plants and habitats sensitive to oil pollution; and the human activity resources refer to specific regions that have additional sensitivity and value as a result of being exploited and utilized by human beings (i.e., area of aquaculture farms to be polluted may be estimated on the basis of the range of dispersion in each case, ¶ 0117).
Conclusion
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses oil spill and environmental risk analysis.
-Guo (Development of a statistical oil spill model for risk assessment) discloses an oil spill model using probabilistic method, which simulates numerous oil spill trajectories under varying environmental conditions.
-Boer et al (Development of an oil spill hazard scenarios database for risk assessment) disclose a methodology to evaluate the risk associated with oil spills in coastal zones and estuaries.
-Olita et al (Oil spill hazard and risk assessment for the shorelines of a Mediterranean coastal archipelago) disclose a model based method for evaluating hazard of oil slicks contact with shorelines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 December 26, 2025