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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 17/121,515 “Classification of Wildfire Danger”, filed 12/14/2020 which claims priority to Provisional 62/948,153, filed 12/13/2019. A Notice of Allowance was granted on 11/30/2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13-14 have been amended.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. The rejections have been withdrawn with reasoning provided below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims no longer recite abstract ideas, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that the Applicant is relying on one of many dictionary definitions of the term “initialize” to support their argument that the use of such does not recite a mental process. However, Examiner will note that the “initializing” claim element is not defined within the specification, nor “initialization” and thus, is taken under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, Applicant using a “simulation” and how the claim is currently presented, is not indicative of integration into a practical application as the claim elements are being used to implement the abstract idea onto a computer and/or linking the use to a particular technological environment. It is for in at least these reasons, that the 101 rejections will be maintained.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-6, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-6 are directed to the abstract idea of wildfire damage prediction.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites initializing an area with macro fire conflagration characteristics that express propensity of parts of the area to accommodate ignition and/or movement of fire; performing a first fire conflagration analysis for the area to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions and fire spread conditions using the macro fire conflagration characteristics to generate macro fire conflagration scores (MAFC scores) that summarize results of the simulated ignitions and fire spread for the parts of the area; initializing the area with notional structures and individually or collectively encoded site characteristics reflecting at least site vegetation, fireproof construction rating, and firefighting capabilities of organization(s) expected to respond to fires approaching the notional structures; performing a second fire conflagration analysis to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions, fire spread conditions and resulting damage to the notional structures, including average annual losses to generate micro fire conflagration scores (MIFC scores) that summarize vulnerability to fire conflagration; wherein the MAFC and MIFC scores are useful for predicting average annual losses at a site in the area.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, dependent claims 3-5 recite Mathematical Concepts due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-6 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a first simulation and a second simulation. The first simulation and second simulation are merely generic computing elements and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a first simulation, a second simulation and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant’s specification in at least 0040 of 17/121,515. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is aa generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 7-12, they are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 7-12 are directed to the abstract idea of wildfire damage prediction.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 7, claim 7 recites initializing an area with macro fire conflagration characteristics that express propensity of parts of the area to accommodate ignition and/or movement of fire; performing a first fire conflagration analysis for the area to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions and fire spread conditions using the macro fire conflagration characteristics to generate macro fire conflagration scores (MAFC scores) that summarize results of the simulated ignitions and fire spread for the parts of the area; initializing the area with notional structures and individually or collectively encoded site characteristics reflecting at least site vegetation, fireproof construction rating, and firefighting capabilities of organization(s) expected to respond to fires approaching the notional structures; performing a second fire conflagration analysis to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions, fire spread conditions and resulting damage to the notional structures, including average annual losses to generate micro fire conflagration scores (MIFC scores) that summarize vulnerability to fire conflagration; wherein the MAFC and the MIFC scores are useful for predicting average annual losses at a site in the area.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, dependent claims 9-11 recite Mathematical Concepts due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 8-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a memory, a first simulation, a second simulation and a plurality of processors. The memory, first simulation, second simulation and plurality of processors are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 includes elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a memory, plurality of processors, first simulation, second simulation and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant’s specification in at least 0040 of 17/121,515. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 7 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 13-18, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 13-18 are directed to the abstract idea of wildfire damage prediction.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 13, claim 13 recites initializing an area with macro fire conflagration characteristics that express propensity of parts of the area to accommodate ignition and/or movement of fire; performing a first fire conflagration analysis for the area to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions and fire spread conditions using the macro fire conflagration characteristics to generate macro fire conflagration scores (MAFC scores) that summarize results of the simulated ignitions and fire spread for the parts of the area; initializing the area with notional structures and individually or collectively encoded site characteristics reflecting at least site vegetation, fireproof construction rating, and firefighting capabilities of organization(s) expected to respond to fires approaching the notional structures; performing a second fire conflagration analysis to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions, fire spread conditions and resulting damage to the notional structures, including average annual losses to generate micro fire conflagration scores (MIFC scores) that summarize vulnerability to fire conflagration; wherein the MAFC and MIFC scores are useful for predicting average annual losses at a site in the area.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Furthermore, dependent claims 15-17 recite Mathematical Concepts due to the mathematical relationships/calculations taking place. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 14-18 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a memory, a first simulation, a second simulation and one or more processors. The memory, first simulation, second simulation and one or more processors are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 includes elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a memory, one or more processors, first simulation, second simulation and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant’s specification in at least 0040 of 17/121,515. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 13 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art
Independent Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been deemed distinguishable over the prior art and would be further allowable if rewritten to overcome the current 101 rejection. In view of the prior art on record, Examiner finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references, or more, with a reasonable explanation of success to in at least teach the limitations of “performing a second fire conflagration analysis to simulate numerous randomly distributed ignitions, fire spread conditions and resulting damage to the notional structures, including average annual losses to generate micro fire conflagration scores (MIFC scores) that summarize vulnerability to fire conflagration”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pierre et al. (US 2011/0153368 A1)
Fiete et al. (US 2019/0378216 A1)
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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
