DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on May 26, 2026, for the application with serial number 18/949,229.
Claims 1-9 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejection
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims are subject matter eligible because the claims recite steps for dynamically displaying a map. See Remarks p. 22. In response, the Examiner point to MPEP §2106.05(a)[II]{iii}, which states that: :Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result;” is not an improvement to technology or a technical field. The present claims recite steps that could be implemented on paper by a human being, but a general purpose computer is recited for data processing and display. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). It is also understood that computer processing operates in real-time. It is also understood that a graphical user interface may be updated in real-time.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
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: flood evacuation route generation (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 and displaying village property risk zones and village property safety zones;” “constructing a road network topology;” “determining a property placement mode for a property risk zone;” “generating a feasible transfer placement route;” “iteratively calculating paths for the feasible transfer placement route;” and “displaying the optimal flood evacuation route.” 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 : flood evacuation route generation. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior and making calculations that are part of the abstract idea of : flood evacuation route generation. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights