DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application with serial number 18/949,229, filed on November 15, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on November 15, 2024, has been considered.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1-20 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: property placement in flood evacuation (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). Additionally, note that mathematical concepts, including formulas and equations are ineligible abstract ideas. The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “collecting basic geographic data, hydrometeorological data, and fundamental water facility data of a target area;” “performing calculations based on the basic data;” “delineating village property risk zones and village property safety zones;” “constructing a road network topology;” “determining a property placement mode for a property risk zone;” “evacuating properties from the property risk zone;” “generating a feasible transfer placement route;” “iteratively calculating paths for the feasible transfer placement route;” and “transferring the properties in the property risk zone . . . to the placement site.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior and interactions between people; and making calculations that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of property placement in flood evacuation. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior and making calculations that are part of the abstract idea of property placement in flood evacuation. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes determining evacuation zones and paths based on a calculated level of risk.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (no hardware is recited in independent claim 1; a computer-readable storage medium is recited in dependent claim 8; and a computer device with a memory and a processor is recited in dependent claim 9;). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Lack of Prior Art Rejection
A thorough search was conducted, but the search did not return prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the independent claims. Although many of the elements of the claims are taught by the prior art, the combination of elements is not obvious in view of the prior art returned in the search.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones, et al., "Near-Real Time Simulation and Internet Based Delivery of Forecast Flood Inundation Maps Using Two-Dimensional Hydraulic modeling: A Pilot Study of the Snoqualmie River, Washington", 2002, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4251. A flood forecast inundation map that uses two dimensional hydraulic modeling is disclosed.
US 20170236231 A1 to Kershaw. A system and method for emergency evacuation and planning are disclosed that determines safety zones at locations near businesses.
US 6947842 B2 to Smith et al. Normalized and animated inundation maps are disclosed that display potential flood levels and a probability that an area will flood in a specific time period.
US 20160125338 A1 to Serageldin et al. A planning system with spatial-based visualization aids is disclosed that used flood mapping data for potential evacuation plans (see ¶[0142]-[0143].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624