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 .
Detailed Action
This Non-Final Rejection Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing of 12/19/2024.
Claims 1 – 4 are pending.
The effective filing date of the present application is 06/21/2022.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“a processing unit, configured to process…”, in claim 1;
“a first calculation unit, configured to calculate…”, in claim 1;
“a second calculation unit, configured to calculate…”, in claim 1;
“a third calculation unit, configured to calculate…”, in claim 1;
“a display unit, configured to display…”, in claim 1;
“a request unit, configured to request…”, in claim 1.
Each claim limitation includes is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function; that is, “including one or more processors”. The disclosure defines this structure at Specification [0114] and one skilled in the art would understand this arrangement as capable of performing these functions.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a device (machine); thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories considered appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims describe preparing for disaster response by studying past response data and preparing a revised, current plan based on that data. That data includes information about people and condition of real estate in an area. The monitoring of people acting within the social environments, describes managing their personal behavior or interactions. The entities who respond to disasters (those who provide help and those who it), are descriptive of social activities. (Society comes together to vote; and similarly, society comes together to recover from a disaster). To request a user to provide a revised response plan based on studying all this data is to require them to follow rules or instructions. Finally, a training plan describes teaching the plan. All of these facets are considered managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is considered a sub-grouping of the certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas. It is noted that managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people can encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping.
Claim 1, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A disaster response training device comprising:
a processing unit, including one or more processors, configured to process damage caused by a past disaster having occurred in a predetermined area and a response policy as a scenario;
a first calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate a current number of people staying in the predetermined area;
a second calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate current damage to real estate in the predetermined area;
a third calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate current disaster response resources in the predetermined area;
a display unit, including one or more processors, configured to display, on a screen, the damage caused by the past disaster and the response policy, the current number of people staying, the current damage to the real estate, and the current disaster response resources; and
a request unit, including one or more processors, configured to request a user to provide a current response policy based on the current number of people staying, the current damage to the real estate, and the current disaster response resources on a basis of the response policy of the scenario.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claim 1 recites only the following additional elements:
A device comprising: a processing unit, including one or more processors;
a first calculation unit, including one or more processors;
a second calculation unit, including one or more processors;
a third calculation unit, including one or more processors;
a display unit, including one or more processors;
a screen;
and a request unit, including one or more processors.
This device and units are deemed to be mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described the response training system 1 generically in the disclosure, at Specification [0021-0023 and 0115], and Figure 1, as filed. Notably, “The disaster response training device 10 may be implemented by a 1 computer. The disaster response training device 10 may be implemented by a plurality of computers.” Thus, aptly describing “apply it” with a computer.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (A device comprising: units, including one or more processors; a display unit; a screen), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2 – 4, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to a degree of risk for structures or areas, damage from past disasters and their timeframes, are all refinements of studying past disaster response data and preparing a revised, current plan based on that data. Calculating values with this information necessarily includes information condition of real estate in an area. These limitations further recite no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 4 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mello (US 2013/0132045), in view of Johnson (US 2016/0284038), in view of Wani (US 2017/0169534), further in view of Sterpin (US 2021/0287318).
Regarding claim 1, Mello discloses a method for estimating risk of impact of a natural disaster on a populated area. Mello teaches a device and processor to: process damage caused by a past disaster having occurred in a predetermined area and a response policy as a scenario; (see [0012] detailing an “ensemble 110 of models and parameter data to make estimations 112 on population/spatial distribution and historical and static risk maps, and to further create alternative disaster management plans 114 given certain uncertainties.” [0025] adds, “This step can be carried out, for example, using historical data describing past impacts on a similar populated area.”);
a display unit, including one or more processors, configured to display, on a screen, the damage caused by the past disaster and the response policy, the current number of people staying, the current damage to the real estate, and the current disaster response resources; and a request unit, including one or more processors, configured to request a user to provide a current response policy based on the current number of people staying, the current damage to the real estate, and the current disaster response resources on a basis of the response policy of the scenario; (first, see [0027] teaching generating outputs on a map; [0035] and Fig 4 suggesting a display to provide the above management plans. Further, this display is operated within a computer environment, see [0031] and Fig 3, teaching such a system as within the instant application).
Not disclosed by Mello is:
a first calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate a current number of people staying in the predetermined area;
a second calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate current damage to real estate in the predetermined area;
a third calculation unit, including one or more processors, configured to calculate current disaster response resources in the predetermined area.
However, regarding a first calculation unit, Johnson discloses an emergency response system and teaches a central server that can provide information indicative of the number of actual or potential occupants of a shelter, see [0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the current number of people staying in an area, per the method of Johnson, within Mello’s method for natural disaster forecasting, because this is the simple substitution of one known variable (number of people) into the planning of disaster relief, to yield the predictable result of who or what is effected and the cost of such impact. As both inventions discloses disaster response planning, it is well known in the art that the general population (people) are most affected and knowing the numbers involved will be an important input into the creation of any revised policy. Johnson discusses the primary focus being the number of people who have taken refuge when discussing emergency response at [0057].
However, regarding a second calculation unit, Wani discloses a damage predictor and teaches calculating damage, see [0091, 0097-0098] and Fig 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate damage, per the method of Wani, within Mello’s method for natural disaster forecasting, because this is the simple substitution of one known variable (damage cost) into the planning of disaster relief, to yield the predictable result of potential cost of structural damage. As both inventions discloses disaster response planning, it is well known in the art that damage will occur to structures and will have a great cost impact. Wani discusses the significant damage to property at [0003].
However, regarding a third calculation unit, Sterpin discloses a method for managing an emergency and teaches monitoring the presence of general protective and rescue equipment in a specific location, [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manage response resources, per the method of Sterpin, within Mello’s method for natural disaster forecasting, because this is the simple substitution of one known variable (emergency response personnel or equipment) into the planning of disaster relief, to yield the predictable result of understanding how to best respond based on available responders. As both inventions discloses disaster response planning, it is well known in the art that these responders will have manage evacuations and rescues. Knowing where these resources are leads to better planning as discussed at [0003].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mello, Johnson, Wani, and Sterpin, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Mello is wherein the second calculation unit calculates damage to the real estate on a basis of the past disaster.
However, Wani discloses a damage predictor method and teaches pre-calculated damage values from past disasters, [0039], and suggests historical data, [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate damage, per the method of Wani, within Mello’s method for natural disaster forecasting, because this is the simple substitution of one known variable (past and historical data) into the planning of disaster relief, to yield the predictable result of potential cost of structural damage. As both inventions discloses disaster response planning, it is well known in the art that damage will occur to structures and will have a great cost impact. Wani discusses the significant damage to property at [0003].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mello, Johnson, Wani, and Sterpin discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Mello is: wherein the scenario is a scenario in which changing damage caused by the past disaster and the response policy are stored in time series for each response time point, and the first calculation unit, the second calculation unit, the third calculation unit, the display unit, and the request unit execute processing for each response time point on the same time axis as the time axis of the scenario; (first, see [Abstract] where Mello’s forecasting discusses a time interval as well as each time step within the time interval. See also [0014-0015] where Mello discusses outputting scenarios based on temporal models.. Further, Mello teaches updating these strategies as time progresses and as new temporal data is collected and models are reassessed).
Regarding claim 2, the recited combination of elements are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record. Specifically: wherein the second calculation unit includes a degree of risk of real estate on a basis of a material, a structure, aging and a geographical condition of the real estate, and a type of disaster and calculates damage to the real estate on a basis of the degree of risk. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, claim 2 is distinguished over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berger discusses managing and monitoring emergency services sector resources. Cherry discloses an emergency planning system and method. Nelson details an emergency response management system and method. Neybert discloses disaster event management. The NPL document discusses disaster response training.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights