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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Amendments filed on 07/17/2026, wherein Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 have been amended. Claims 11-16 are new.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but found not persuasive.
Applicant states in page 9: “The features recited in amended Claim 1 advantageously combine to overcome the limitations in the conventional methods by dividing the flooded area into a plurality of divided areas based on the boundaries where the water level changes. This allows for more accurate determination of inundation in each of the divided areas than what is possible with conventional methods. As such, the features recited in amended Claim 1 represent a technological improvement in the area of disaster assessment and management. Accordingly, it is believed that amended Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 together with any claim depending therefrom”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dividing the flooded area into a plurality of divided areas based on the boundaries where the water level changes is an obvious step to simplify the calculation of the water level or depth in the affected area. There is no description of technological improvement in the claims. Applicant did not show the practical application in the claim, which should be shown by the meaningful additional elements and the specific action performed as a result of the method applied.
Moreover, the examiner submits that as explained in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility: “… in Parker v. Flook, the Court found that the claim recited a mathematical formula. This determination was not altered by the fact that the math was being used to solve an engineering problem (i.e., updating an alarm limit during catalytic conversion processes)” (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 3).
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, have been considered and found persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process/product. The below claim is considered to be a statutory category (product).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an
abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ‘’additional elements’’.
A flood depth estimation apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry:
to acquire inundated area data indicating an inundated area in a subject area,
inundation estimation data indicating for the subject area, a boundary where a water level changes when inundation occurs, and elevation data indicating an elevation at each point in the subject area;
to divide the inundated area indicated in the acquired inundated area data, into a plurality of divided areas based on the boundary indicated in the inundation estimation data;
for each of the one or more divided areas obtained by the division, to calculate the water level in a subject divided area, from the elevation indicated in the elevation data on a boundary area of the subject divided area; and
for the each point, to calculate a flood depth at a subject point, from the elevation indicated in the elevation data on the subject point, and the calculated water level for the divided area including the subject point.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that when recited as such in a claim limitation covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, the limitations of “to divide the inundated area indicated in the acquired inundated area data, into one or more divided areas based on the boundary indicated in the inundation estimation data”; “for each of the one or more divided areas obtained by the division to calculate the water level in a subject divided area, from the elevation indicated in the elevation data on a boundary area of the subject divided area”, and “to calculate a flood depth at a subject point, from the elevation indicated in the elevation data on the subject point, and the calculated water level for the divided area including the subject point” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concepts grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites
a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The additional element in Claim 1 of “processing circuitry” is recited in generality and do not recite particular machines applying or being used by the abstract idea. The “processing circuitry” is a generic computer used to facilitate the application of the judicial exception. The preamble of Claim 1: “A flood depth estimation apparatus comprising” is a generically recited preamble that generally links the judicial exception to a field of use.
The additional element in Claim 1 of “to acquire inundated area data indicating an inundated area in a subject area, inundation estimation data indicating for the subject area, a boundary where a water level changes when inundation occurs, and elevation data indicating an elevation at each point in the subject area” is treated as an extra solution activity recited in generality (e.g., mere data gathering).
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of independent Claims 5-8.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-4 and 9-16 provide additional features/steps which are either part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and/or adding additional elements/steps that are not meaningful as they are recited in generality and/or not qualified as particular machine and/or eligible transformation and, therefore, do not reflect a practical application as well as not qualified for “significantly more” based on prior art of record.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 1 and 5-8 include the allowable subject matter. If the 101 issues are resolved, Claims 1 and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office Action.
In regards to Claim 1, the teachings of Wani, Satoshi, Ke, and Petty combined show all the elements of the claim except “to acquire inundated area data indicating an inundated area in a subject area, inundation estimation data indicating for the subject area, a boundary where a water level changes when inundation occurs, and elevation data indicating an elevation at each point in the subject area; to divide the inundated area indicated in the acquired inundated area data, into a plurality of divided areas based on the boundary indicated in the inundation estimation data”, in combination with the rest of the claim’s limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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 M. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights