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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1-10 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of 11-14 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the reply filed on 01/07/2026. Claim(s) 11-14 and 16-19 are presently pending and are examined in this first action on the merits (FAOM).
Drawings
The drawings, Fig. 1 to Fig. 6, are objected to because they lack clarity. Drawings are of low resolution and the images are blurry, making it nearly impossible to review. 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 1.121(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 Objections
Claim 11-14 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: (i) each line is showing as a new paragraph making reading difficult. Appropriate correction is required.(ii) Claim 11,14, 16, and 18 lack transition phases. The determination of what is or is not excluded by a transitional phrase must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of each case (MPEP 2111.03). Since no transitional phase is used, the examiner is treating the claim as a closed group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including").
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 11 is directed to toward a method. Therefore, the independent claims 11 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or organizing human activity.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 11 recites:
An evacuation simulation which calculates and filters relevant simulation data for operator user consumption by,
toggling live traffic on and off,
highlighting an impact area, placing red shading and a hard red outline over the area,
allowing user to select a waypoint,
displaying evacuation sequence information,
displaying blocked roads, by placing a yellow line across the route,
said simulation offering the option to reset the filters and offering the option to run simulation, and wherein once a "reset all" command is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode,
and once a "run simulation" command is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and ending point for the simulated route representing the optimal total evacuation time.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example,
“toggling” live traffic on and off in the context of this claim encompasses a person from switching between reviewing live traffic information vs. relying on prior information
“highlighting” an impact area in the context of this claim encompasses a person focusing their analysis on a specific area
“option to reset the filters” and offering the “option to run simulation” in the context of this claim encompasses a person from starting the calculation again
As explained above, independent claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An evacuation simulation which calculates and filters relevant simulation data for operator user consumption by,
toggling live traffic on and off,
highlighting an impact area, placing red shading and a hard red outline over the area,
allowing user to select a waypoint,
displaying evacuation sequence information,
displaying blocked roads, by placing a yellow line across the route,
said simulation offering the option to reset the filters and offering the option to run simulation, and wherein once a "reset all" command is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode,
and once a "run simulation" command is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and ending point for the simulated route representing the optimal total evacuation time.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “displaying evacuation sequence”, “displaying blocked roads”, and “a detailed map is displayed” the examiner submits that this limitation also amounts to mere outputting data which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). In particular, the “display or displaying” step is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere presenting on a generic computer, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (e.g. presenting a result). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claims 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “display” amounts to nothing more than mere presenting data using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “display” and “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than a conventional computer screen. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 11 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 12 is directed to toward a method. Therefore, the independent claims 11 and its dependent claim 13 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or organizing human activity.
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 12 recites:
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time for operator user consumption, comprising options to analyze the relevant simulation by,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles, within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within the evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of heavy vehicles within the evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for the evacuation area for these vehicles to reach a waypoint,
assessing, weighing and factoring in trip time in minutes for a requested route based on departure time in minutes,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route,
the module further offering an option to modify the route in reaching its total evacuation time determination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example,
“assessing, weighing and factoring” is analyzing data
As explained above, independent claim 12 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time for operator user consumption, comprising options to analyze the relevant simulation by,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles, within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within the evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of heavy vehicles within the evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for the evacuation area for these vehicles to reach a waypoint,
assessing, weighing and factoring in trip time in minutes for a requested route based on departure time in minutes,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route,
the module further offering an option to modify the route in reaching its total evacuation time determination.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “calculated number of addresses within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles, within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles”, “calculated number of passenger cars within the evacuation area”, “calculated number of heavy vehicles within the evacuation area”, “calculated total clearance time for the evacuation area for these vehicles to reach a waypoint”, and “calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route” the examiner submits that this limitation is similar to a planner evaluating the data and computing the possible evacuation routes. Nothing in the claim element precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgement) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claims 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 12 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “displays calculated evacuation simulation data” amounts to nothing more than mere presenting data using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “display” and “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than a conventional computer screen. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 12 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 13 has been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claim 13 when analyzed both individually and in combination, is also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 13 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claim 13 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 12.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 16 is directed to toward a method. Therefore, the independent claims 16 and dependent claim 17 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 16 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or organizing human activity.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 16 recites:
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, wherein
the simulation module toggles on and off live traffic,
highlights impact area, places red shading and a hard red outline over the impact area
identifies an evacuation waypoint,
displays evacuation sequence information,
displays blocked roads by placing a yellow line across the route,
the simulation further providing the option to reset these filters, further providing the option to run the simulation in a sequence wherein, once a command "reset all" is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode, and
such that once a command "run simulation" is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and an ending point for the simulated route.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example,
“toggling” live traffic on and off in the context of this claim encompasses a person from switching between reviewing live traffic information vs. relying on prior information
“highlighting” an impact area in the context of this claim encompasses a person focusing their analysis on a specific area
“option to reset the filters” and offering the “option to run simulation” in the context of this claim encompasses a person from starting the calculation again
As explained above, independent claim 16 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, wherein
the simulation module toggles on and off live traffic,
highlights impact area, places red shading and a hard red outline over the impact area
identifies an evacuation waypoint,
displays evacuation sequence information,
displays blocked roads by placing a yellow line across the route,
the simulation further providing the option to reset these filters, further providing the option to run the simulation in a sequence wherein, once a command "reset all" is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode, and
such that once a command "run simulation" is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and an ending point for the simulated route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “displays calculated evacuation simulation data “, “displaying blocked roads”, and “detailed map is displayed” the examiner submits that this limitation also amounts to mere outputting data which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). In particular, the “display or displaying” step is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere presenting on a generic computer, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (e.g. presenting a result). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claims 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 16 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “display” amounts to nothing more than mere presenting data using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “display” and “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than a conventional computer screen. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 16 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 17 has been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claim 17 when analyzed both individually and in combination, is also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim 17 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claim 17 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 16.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 18 is directed to toward a method. Therefore, the independent claims 18 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or organizing human activity.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 18 recites:
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time wherein the simulation is:
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring a calculated number of heavy trucks within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated response time for a named evacuation area, assessing,
weighing and factoring in weighing and factoring in a calculated trip time for requested route,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a geographical visual representation of trip time for a requested route in minutes based on departure time in minutes,
and wherein the module is additionally assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have departed along the generated route,
and further assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route, and
further offering the option to modify the route.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example,
“assessing, weighing and factoring” is analyzing data
As explained above, independent claim 18 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time wherein the simulation is:
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring a calculated number of heavy trucks within a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for a named evacuation area,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated response time for a named evacuation area, assessing,
weighing and factoring in a calculated trip time for requested route,
assessing, weighing and factoring in a geographical visual representation of trip time for a requested route in minutes based on departure time in minutes,
and wherein the module is additionally assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have departed along the generated route,
and further assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route, and
further offering the option to modify the route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “calculated number of addresses within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles, within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles”, “calculated number of passenger cars within the evacuation area”, “calculated number of heavy vehicles within the evacuation area”, “calculated total clearance time for the evacuation area for these vehicles to reach a waypoint”, and “calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route” the examiner submits that this limitation is similar to a planner evaluating the data and computing the possible evacuation routes. Nothing in the claim element precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgement) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claims 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 12 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “displays calculated evacuation simulation data” and “offering the option to modify the route “amounts to nothing more than mere presenting data using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “display” and “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than a conventional computer screen. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 18 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore claims 11, 12, 16 and 18, and the dependent claims 13 and 17 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 11-13, and 16-18 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert Shear et. al. US20220090927 (“Shear”) in view of Edward Riegelman et. al. US20050034075 (“Riegelman”).
As per Claim 11,
Shear discloses,
An evacuation simulation which calculates and filters relevant simulation data for operator user consumption [Abstract] The scenarios may use simulation models to determine the affected zones and the rate of spread of the incident.
toggling live traffic on and off (see at least [0083] Real-time data feeds module 285 may connect to external sources to ingest or aggregate real-time data from real life incidents, weather reports, evacuation statuses, occupancy/populations of zones, traffic, road closures and [0139] The time based zone impaction 1215 pane may allow the user to toggle or otherwise turn off the displaying or modeling of each time step)
highlighting an impact area, placing red shading and a hard red outline over the area (see at least [0043] the selected zone may be highlighted or shown in a different color shade than other zones, [0121] The incident impact area 907 may visually indicate the affected areas of the map. The incident impact area 907 may visually differentiate the time based progression or spread of the impacted area. To visually differentiate the spread of the incident, different colors or shading may be used for the regions affected at corresponding times, and [0122] The user may also select multiple zones by clicking/touching and dragging the selection over the zones that they wish to select, much like a highlighter, or drawing a polygon around the zones that they wish to select)
allowing user to select a waypoint (see at least [0054] the user and/or the system (based at least in part, in some examples, on user input) may select one or more exit points for the one or more zones., and [0076] Egress module 221 may determine which potential egress routes and arrival points are the safest, shortest/closest or fastest from individual structures)
displaying evacuation sequence information (see at least Fig. 7 to Fig. 12N, and [0078] Information from the zones module 215 and routes module 220 may be used by the pre-plans module 225 in the generation and publication of evacuation pre-plans. The user may modify the evacuation pre-plan by adding/selecting/updating special conditions, critical evacuation facilities, traffic control points, resources for traffic control points, potential routes, prioritized routes based on threat direction, potential arrival points by map or by address, related links or other properties or parameters of the evacuation preplan).
displaying blocked roads, by placing a yellow line across the route, (see at least [0004] The map may be displayed by the user interface showing a road network, and [0051] The user interface allows a user to understand the likely flow of traffic and plan accordingly. For example, a police agency may identify where to set up traffic control points or where to possibly block off streets to achieve an effective flow of traffic)
said simulation offering the option to reset the filters and offering the option to run simulation, and wherein once a "reset all" command is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode (see at least [0123] The filter selection 1005 pane may alternatively only display the selected entries as is shown in FIG. 10C. The user may deselect the selected entries by clicking a delete, trash bin, or ‘X’ icon or link associated with the selected entry as is shown in FIG. 10C. With regards to FIG. 10B, the user may uncheck the box associated with the entry selection.
once a "run simulation" command is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and ending point for the simulated route representing the optimal total evacuation time (see at least [0134] FIGS. 12D-12N shows an embodiment of the EPS 102 user interface 1200 in which a user may create a new incident. As shown in FIG. 12D, the user may select “REPOPULATE” or other appropriate statuses from the zone status 1202 to begin the creation of a new incident, [0136] Incident model selection 1210 may provide different incident modeling options to the user. The user may choose between creating a new simulation, using existing simulations, or using a radius model in the simulation, [0075] prepare and plan for potential traffic control points, evacuation arrival points and evacuation routes, [0076] generate potential evacuation routes and identify traffic control points, and [0076] Egress module 221 may determine which potential egress routes and arrival points are the safest, shortest/closest or fastest from individual structures).
Shear does not disclose,
displaying blocked roads, by placing a yellow line across the route
Riegelman teaches,
displaying blocked roads, by placing a yellow line across the route (see at least [0018] Different highlighting, shading or colors may be used to indicate types of roads)
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Riegelman teaches a GIS-based system and method for simulating, viewing, analyzing and managing emergency and other types of events.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with different highlighting, shading or colors to indicate types of roads as taught by Riegelman, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that decision makers can easily and rapidly navigate to and view essential, up-to-date information using a map-based interface (0028).
As per Claim 12,
Shear discloses,
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time for operator user consumption, comprising options to analyze the relevant simulation by (see at least [0046] such simulating the occurrence may include creating an incident (which may be a real incident or a not an actual, currently ongoing event) and [0046] the creating may include one or more of placing an incident point on the map, selecting an incident type, running a perimeter simulation or radius model, building a zone selection set from the perimeter simulation or radius model, adding details and/or retrieved predefined information to the incident)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles (see at least [0051] route intersection travel counts may be determined based on the number of structures or address points and/or the number of vehicles residing at each structure or address point within the one or more zones and the intersection points which each vehicle travels through during an evacuation)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within the evacuation area (see at least [0051] The route intersection travel counts of intersection points may increase as more vehicles are added to the route between intersection points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of heavy vehicles within the evacuation area (see at least [0051] The route intersection travel counts of intersection points may increase as more vehicles are added to the route between intersection points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for the evacuation area for these vehicles to reach a waypoint (see at least [0046] such simulating the occurrence may also include adding or removing zones from the selection set based on evacuation time and by clicking on the zones to be added or removed)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated trip time for the requested route from vehicles start location to the waypoint (see at least [0054] The system (in some examples, based at least in part on user input) also may select the route (or multiple routes) with, or based at least in part, the shortest distance and travel time for each building structure to the exit points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in trip time in minutes for a requested route based on departure time in minutes (see at least [0046] the added details may include start time, end time, start data, end date, name, description and or an assigned status of the incident, etc.)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have departed along the generated route (see at least [0051] The route intersection travel counts of intersection points may increase as more vehicles are added to the route between intersection points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route (see at least [0051] route intersection travel counts may be determined based on the number of structures or address points and/or the number of vehicles residing at each structure or address point, and [0065] They may also be required to ensure that ingress and egress of vehicles is managed through traffic control points)
the module further offering an option to modify the route in reaching its total evacuation time determination (see at least [0005] The user interface may also be configured for modifying one or more attributes associated with a particular zone, and in some examples the method may include such modifying, [0054] The system (in some examples, based at least in part on user input) also may select the route (or multiple routes) with, or based at least in part, the shortest distance and travel time for each building structure to the exit points, and [0078] The user may modify the evacuation pre-plan by adding/ selecting / updating special conditions, critical evacuation facilities, traffic control points, resources for traffic control points, potential routes, prioritized routes based on threat direction, potential arrival points by map or by address, related links or other properties or parameters of the evacuation preplan)
Shear does not disclose,
within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles,
Riegelman teaches,
within a chosen evacuation area which is represented in purple circles (see at least [0019] The cordon area may be circular, based on an input radius, such as the cordon area 230 highlighted in FIG. 4, or may be some other calculated, selected or drawn shape, depending upon the nature and extent of the event, and [0019] The status of buildings within the cordon area 230 may be indicated (step 610) by changing their shading, coloring or highlighting to show whether occupants of a building have been notified and, if so, whether they have fully evacuated)
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Riegelman teaches a GIS-based system and method for simulating, viewing, analyzing and managing emergency and other types of events.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with different highlighting, shading or colors to indicate types of roads as taught by Riegelman, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that decision makers can easily and rapidly navigate to and view essential, up-to-date information using a map-based interface (0028).
Claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert Shear et. al. US20220090927 (“Shear”) in view of Alan Bruce et. al. US20080046134 (“Bruce”).
As per Claim 14,
Shear discloses,
the simulation module further offering the option to prompt a "Run Simulation" command once an origin starting point and a destination ending point are chosen (see at least [0134] FIGS. 12D-12N shows an embodiment of the EPS 102 user interface 1200 in which a user may create a new incident. As shown in FIG. 12D, the user may select “REPOPULATE” or other appropriate statuses from the zone status 1202 to begin the creation of a new incident)
Shear does not disclose,
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, the module visually displaying routes within a chosen origin starting point and a chosen destination ending point,
the module displaying a publicly-available map displaying the common geographic landmarks of established roads, rivers, bodies of water and landmarks,
Bruce teaches,
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, the module visually displaying routes within a chosen origin starting point and a chosen destination ending point (see at least Fig. 6B)
the module displaying a publicly-available map displaying the common geographic landmarks of established roads, rivers, bodies of water and landmarks (see at least [0052] The ground control 129 correlates collected images with digital street maps to process the imagery data 125, and can focus on roadways of interest if desired, and [0073] GIS generated maps may have several layers, one with the land coordinates, another with roads, another with street lights, and yet another layer with buildings. The present invention uses these layers in different formats to assist in the routing of vehicles, e.g., a basic county map is typically drawn with the land, water, and islands as separate layers within the AGTM system 114)
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Baig teaches an evacuation route planning tool.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with determination and plotting of evacuation routes, based on emergency-specific information as well as road flow and estimated time of travel for each section of road between the evacuation area and safe area.as taught by Bruce, with a reasonable expectation of success, to compute optimal initial routes and redirect evacuees if changes in the emergency situation occur (0017).
As per Claim 16,
Shear discloses,
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, wherein,
the simulation module toggles on and off live traffic (see at least [0079] The modified impedance module 243 may determine route timings based on traffic flow, congestion, construction or other factors that slow the speed of vehicles or restrict a vehicle's access to a selected arrival point, [0083] Real-time data feeds module 285 may connect to external sources to ingest or aggregate real-time data from real life incidents, weather reports, evacuation statuses, occupancy/populations of zones, traffic, road closures and [0139] The time based zone impaction 1215 pane may allow the user to toggle or otherwise turn off the displaying or modeling of each time step)
highlights impact area, places red shading and a hard red outline over the impact area (see at least [0104] At step 602, the user may choose to create an incident by placing an incident point on the map. The user may also select an incident area or may enter an address for the location of the incident. The user may also select or enter a radius of impact of the incident, and/or a movement/spread speed and direction of the incident, and [0117] The map key 705 provides an explanation of the symbols and colors used in the map).
identifies an evacuation waypoint (see at least [0111] At step 609, the system sends alerts, notifications, evacuation recommendations, egress points, evacuation arrival points, and/or locations of critical evacuation facilities through the one or more communication channels)
displays evacuation sequence information (see at least [0121] Recommendations for zones to be evacuated and the times at which each zone should be evacuated may be displayed in the scenario evacuation recommendations 905 section. The times at which each zone is evacuated may be based on the rate of spread of the simulated incident, such as a simulated fire spread, flood simulations or hazardous plumes simulations)
the simulation further providing the option to reset these filters, further providing the option to run the simulation in a sequence wherein, once a command "reset all" is selected, the filters are returned to their default mode, (see at least [0017] Mode selection icons 701 may be used to select the mode of operation. The user may select zones, scenarios, training, admin, live or additional modes of operation. Zone status and information 702 may display the current status of the one or more selected zones. An option for the user to clear the selections may be provided to the user, [0123] The filter selection 1005 pane may alternatively only display the selected entries as is shown in FIG. 10C. The user may deselect the selected entries by clicking a delete, trash bin, or ‘X’ icon or link associated with the selected entry as is shown in FIG. 10C. With regards to FIG. 10B, the user may uncheck the box associated with the entry selection, and [0132] For example, the user may select the zone status 1202, and given a list of statuses that may be chosen from. The list may include normal, advisory, clear to repopulate, and other statuses related to incidents occurring within the zone. The list may be dynamically generated with statuses that are relevant to the type of incident and the zones that are selected. The list may also be prepopulated with default statuses. A user may also be allowed to create, edit, or import statuses that are to be used in the zone status 1202 list.)
such that once a command "run simulation" is selected, a detailed map is displayed with a starting and an ending point for the simulated route (see at least [0134] FIGS. 12D-12N shows an embodiment of the EPS 102 user interface 1200 in which a user may create a new incident. As shown in FIG. 12D, the user may select “REPOPULATE” or other appropriate statuses from the zone status 1202 to begin the creation of a new incident).
Shear does not disclose,
displays blocked roads by placing a yellow line across the route,
Bruce teaches,
displays blocked roads by placing a yellow line across the route (see at least Fig. 3C, [0087] FIG. 3A illustrates screen 400 that is displayed on display device 102. Screen 400 shows start point 402 and end point 404, and a second screen 406 showing individual details of route 408, and [0089] FIG. 3C illustrates that when a barrier 412, such as a road blockage, is reported or otherwise discovered to be along route 410, that barrier 412 is reported to the dynamic routing tool 116, which then recalculates route 408. The road impedances that are affected by barrier 412 are reported such that any other calculated routes may also be properly determined)
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Baig teaches an evacuation route planning tool.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with determination and plotting of evacuation routes, based on emergency-specific information as well as road flow and estimated time of travel for each section of road between the evacuation area and safe area.as taught by Bruce, with a reasonable expectation of success, to compute optimal initial routes and redirect evacuees if changes in the emergency situation occur (0017).
As per Claim 17,
Shear discloses,
simulation module of Claim 16 wherein the default values comprise at least:
two cars per address (see at least [0087] The interface may provide the user with a slide bar to modify a vehicle multiplier. The vehicle multiplier may be used to adjust the estimated number of vehicles within a zone. The multiplier may be applied to individual structures, a category of structures, structures in selected areas or combination thereof. For example, a user may wish to add a multiplier to residential structures over a certain size to take into consideration larger family sizes and the likelihood that a family of five is more likely to have more than one car than a single person living in a studio apartment)
a one-mile evac radius (see at least [0104] The user may also select or enter a radius of impact of the incident, and/or a movement/spread speed and direction of the incident, and [0106] the system may run a perimeter simulation or radius model to determine the areas of impact as the incident unfolds
a 0.2 heavy vehicle percentage defining the density of traffic, (see at least [0087] The interface may provide the user with a slide bar to modify a vehicle multiplier, and [0101] the intersect counts module 222 may determine the intersection travel counts based on the number of vehicles that travel through each intersection point)
and a thirty-minute departure timeframe (see at least [0046] the added details may include start time, end time, start data, end date)
As per Claim 18,
Shear discloses,
A simulation module that,
processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, wherein the simulation is (see at least [0051] As part of training, simulation and monitoring a real-time incident, the system may provide functionality for route suggestion and traffic control points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of addresses within a named evacuation area (see at least [0051] route intersection travel counts may be determined based on the number of structures or address points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of passenger cars within a named evacuation area (see at least [0051] the number of vehicles residing at each structure or address point within the one or more zones, and [0051] The number of vehicles within the one or more zones may be determined based on a time of day and an estimated population of the one or more zones at that particular time of day)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of heavy trucks within a named evacuation area (see at least [0051] the number of vehicles residing at each structure or address point within the one or more zones)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated total clearance time for a named evacuation area (see at least [0046] In some examples, such simulating the occurrence may also include adding or removing zones from the selection set based on evacuation time and by clicking on the zones to be added or removed)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated response time for a named evacuation area, assessing (see at least [0087] intersect counts module 222 may determine route intersection travel counts for the one or more zones. The determination may be based partly on the number of addresses a zone may have, which loosely correlates to the number of residential vehicles within a zone)
weighing and factoring in a calculated trip time for requested route (see at least [0097] the routes module 220 and/or the egress module 221 may determine one or more routes from the building structures within the one or more zones to the one or more exit points)
assessing, weighing and factoring in a geographical visual representation of trip time for a requested route in minutes based on departure time in minutes (see at least [0076] Egress module 221 may determine which potential egress routes and arrival points are the safest, shortest/closest or fastest from individual structures, and [0079] The modified impedance module 243 may determine route timings based on traffic flow, congestion, construction or other factors that slow the speed of vehicles or restrict a vehicle's access to a selected arrival point)
wherein the module is additionally assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have departed along the generated route (see at least [0087] The intersect travel counts at each intersection correlates to the number of vehicles that pass through the intersection. When multiple vehicles take a route to an egress or arrival points from their respective residences or building structures, the vehicles from structures between intersections along the route are added to the intersection travel counts. As the path continues to the egress/arrival point, the intersection travel counts will increase. The interface may provide the user with a slide bar to modify a vehicle multiplier. The vehicle multiplier may be used to adjust the estimated number of vehicles within a zone.)
further assessing, weighing and factoring in a calculated number of vehicles that have arrived at the end of the generated route (see at least Fig. 5, and [0054] the system may also use one or more of these selected routes, and/or the estimated number of vehicles, to determine the number of vehicles that travel through each intersection point)
further offering the option to modify the route (see at least [0005] The user interface may also be configured for modifying one or more attributes associated with a particular zone, and in some examples the method may include such modifying, and [0078] The user may modify the evacuation pre-plan by adding/selecting/updating special conditions, critical evacuation facilities, traffic control points, resources for traffic control points, potential routes, prioritized routes based on threat direction, potential arrival points by map or by address, related links or other properties or parameters of the evacuation preplan)
As per Claim 19,
Shear discloses,
A simulation module that processes, updates and displays calculated evacuation simulation data to determine best routes and total evacuation time, wherein
the simulation further comprising the option to follow a "Run Simulation" prompt once an origin starting point and a destination ending point are demarcated (see at least [0134] FIGS. 12D-12N shows an embodiment of the EPS 102 user interface 1200 in which a user may create a new incident. As shown in FIG. 12D, the user may select “REPOPULATE” or other appropriate statuses from the zone status 1202 to begin the creation of a new incident)
Shear does not disclose,
the simulation comprises a map comprising routes within a named origin" starting point and a named destination ending point, and wherein
the map displays common geographic landmarks comprising at least established roads, rivers, bodies of water, and landmarks,
Bruce teaches,
the simulation comprises a map comprising routes within a named origin" starting point and a named destination ending point, and wherein (see at least [0104] FIG. 6A illustrates network 200 that has an emergency situation where evacuation area 300 and safe area 302 have been defined by the AGTM system 114. The evacuation route planning tool 118 of the present invention now must determine the optimal evacuation routes for each of the nodes 304, 306, 308, and 310)
the map displays common geographic landmarks comprising at least established roads, rivers, bodies of water, and landmarks (see at least [0052] The ground control 129 correlates collected images with digital street maps to process the imagery data 125, and can focus on roadways of interest if desired, and [0073] GIS generated maps may have several layers, one with the land coordinates, another with roads, another with street lights, and yet another layer with buildings. The present invention uses these layers in different formats to assist in the routing of vehicles, e.g., a basic county map is typically drawn with the land, water, and islands as separate layers within the AGTM system 114).
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Baig teaches an evacuation route planning tool.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with determination and plotting of evacuation routes, based on emergency-specific information as well as road flow and estimated time of travel for each section of road between the evacuation area and safe area.as taught by Bruce, with a reasonable expectation of success, to compute optimal initial routes and redirect evacuees if changes in the emergency situation occur (0017).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shear and Riegelman as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Haroon Baig et. al US8831881 B1(“Baig”)
As per Claim 13,
Shear discloses,
simulation module of Claim 12 further featuring an X-Y axis graph wherein,
a first colored line represents trip time on the X-axis and wherein a second colored line on the Y-axis represents departure time, the axis therein showing the trend of vehicles departing later in the evacuation taking longer to reach their destination (see at least [0087] intersect travel counts at each intersection correlates to the number of vehicles that pass through the intersection, and [0087] As the path continues to the egress/arrival point, the intersection travel counts will increase).
Shear does not disclose,
a first colored line represents trip time on the X-axis and wherein a second colored line on the Y-axis represents departure time, the axis therein showing the trend of vehicles departing later in the evacuation taking longer to reach their destination.
Baig teaches,
a first colored line represents trip time on the X-axis and wherein a second colored line on the Y-axis represents departure time, the axis therein showing the trend of vehicles departing later in the evacuation taking longer to reach their destination (See at least [Col. 4 line 53 – 60] FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary calendar overview 202 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. Calendar overview can include a graph generally 204 that has units of time on an axis 206. Axis 206 can be automatically scaled by a system implementing calendar over view 202 based on the duration of the trips that are to be represented in the calendar overview, and [Col. 6, line 8-13] Desired departure time indicator 236 can indicate the departure time that was entered by the user when the plurality of trips were requested. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, desired departure time indicator 236 can be a bar that is perpendicular to axis 206)
Thus, Shear discloses system and methods for zone-based incident training, simulation, planning and real-time incident and evacuation management and Baig teaches representing the plurality of trips with a plurality of trip identifiers at different positions on a first axis of a graph.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Shear with different highlighting, shading or colors to indicate types of roads as taught by Riegelman, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that best available trips over an extended period of time can be illustrated and explored by a user operating the interactive user interface (Col. 2, line 64-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668