DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed November 20, 2025. Applicant’s November 20th amendment amended claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 and canceled claim 5. Currently Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 7 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. not a mental process, not a commercial activity; cannot be performed by human mind as method steps require processor/specific modules to execute; specific technological elements; not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas; invention directed to water resource allocation to management and distributed limited water supplies wherein allocation relates to social economy/emphasized not-for-profit goals; Specification: Page 2, Paragraph 4; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 20; Pages 21-25).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As argued by Applicant, and disclosed/emphasized in Specification Paragraphs 3-6 the disclosed and claimed invention is directed to the claims are directed to water resource allocation to management and distribution of water supplies (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 21), used to coordinate water resource allocation method for solving problems such as water supply-demand conflicts caused by improper planning and management (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 24) – i.e. water resource planning. Resource planning- more specifically acquiring various data used to solving/resolving objective function(s) based on various constraints and by adapting a generic algorithm to obtain water resource allocation data – is directed to an method for organizing human activity – well-known economic practice – a series of mathematical operations coupled with insignificant pre-solution activity (e.g. acquiring steps) as well as a mental process capable of being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper.
The claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of water resource allocation (resource planning – i.e. provide a business solution to a business problem – provide a societal solution to a society problem), however the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, hardware device, display, database, control devices).
While the invention may achieve one or more of Applicant’s argued ‘improvements’ such as 'increasing the availability of resources in areas where it may be scarce" (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 23), 'efficient and coordinated water resource management (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 24) or 'water resource optimization allocation" (Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 25) such 'improvements' are merely an improvement in the abstract idea itself (resource management) and not an improvement in any of the underlying technology (e.g. processor, calculation unit, etc.), does not improve the functioning of a computer (e.g. processor), does not improve another technical field (water resource management/planning is not a technical field).
With regards to the mental processing categorization of the claims, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of acquiring a sub-basin in a setting regarding based on a digital evaluation model may be performed in the human mind using observation of data – also directed to insufficient pre-solution activity. The step of determining a spatial topological relationship between water users and ware sources may be performed in the human mid via evaluation and judgement. The step of acquiring water demand data in the administrative region may be determined in a human mid using observation – also directed to insufficient pre-solution activity. The step of constructing objective functions and constraint conditions may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement and is also directed to a mathematical operation/concept. The step of resolving the objection functions based on the constraint conditions and by adopting a genetic algorithm may be performed by the human mind via evaluation - – also directed to a mathematical operation/concept.
Other than the recitation of distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including the distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors; each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of water resource planning. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, calculation unit, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of acquiring a sub-basin in a setting regarding based on a digital evaluation model and acquiring water demand data in the administrative region which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving and processing data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 7, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of (water) resource planning. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, resource planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to planning for the allocation/distribution of water resource(s), wherein resource planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “acquiring”, “determining”, “acquiring”, “calculating”, “constructing”, and “resolving” recite functions of the resource planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps of generate constructing objective functions and constraints and resolving the objective functions based on the constraints are also directed to an abstract idea because they are mathematical concepts/operations. The intended purpose of independent Claims 1 and 7 appears to be to acquiring various data used to solving/resolving objective function(s) based on various constraints and by adapting a generic algorithm to obtain water resource allocation data.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors. These generic computing components are merely used to acquire and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 6). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's water resource allocation determining in the general field of resource planning and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), claims 1-4, 6 and 7 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic, recited at a high level of generality, the recited distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors" the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited genetic algorithm, the examiner notes that the genetic algorithm used to solve/resolve the object function is recited at a high level of generality and is at best a well-known, conventional, routine and well-understood mathematical concept. Further the genetic algorithm is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic genetic algorithm on a generic ‘system’, also recited at a high level of generality. The genetic algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the trained neural network functions. The genetic algorithm is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic ‘system’ to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of determining a spatial topological relationship between water uses and ware sources, calculating a water supply amount, constructing objective functions and constraints (also a mathematical operation) and resolving the objective functions (also a mathematical operation) all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors (Speciation: Figure 6) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps acquiring a sub-basin in a setting region and acquiring water demand data in an administrative region are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors (Speciation: Figure 6) are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of acquiring and processing data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The 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 do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the acquiring steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the ‘system’ is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 6, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of resource planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1 and 7.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the multi-attribute overlaying method to a nested allocation units division method (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by the acquiring water demand data and calculating daily amount of ware supply is according to the spatial topological relationship and water source priority and acquiring the data of water demand, water consumption, urban point solution, determining the daily allocation water and water demand type, obtaining a water consumption quantity, obtaining a water discharge quantity, calculating an urban point source pollution discharge, calculating a rural non-point source pollution discharge, obtaining pollution discharge quantity, and counting the daily water allocation (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by acquiring urban, rural, agriculture land area, obtaining a plurality of urban land allocation units, obtaining a plurality of rural land allocation units, obtaining a plurality of agricultural land allocation units, obtaining the water demand data, obtaining the rural water demand data, obtaining agricultural water demand data, determine a target water user of the allocation unit, determining a water demand type, determine daily water demand, determine the number, water supply type and water supply priority, determining a water intake amount, and determining a daily water allocation target (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the resource constraint to a series of equations (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 7, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to distributed water resource allocation system (software per se), unit dividing module (software per se), spatial topological module (software per se), calculation module (software per se), construction module (software per se), resolving module, one or more processors at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). Examiner notes that nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is any computer hardware disclosed. Claims 1-6 fail to recite who or what entity performs the various method steps.
More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. system, modules, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a modules (e.g. unit dividing, spatial topological, construction, resolving, etc. - software er se), systems merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figures 13, 14). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625