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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410772678.5, filed on 06/14/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 filed on 11/20/2024 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the second line, second matrix, i is missing a subscript number. Examiner assumes this is a typo, and is interpreting it as i4. However, clarity is required since it would change the scope of the invention is the interpretation is incorrect.
Secondly, it is unclear what the purpose of nI4+1 and nI4-1 is. Does this increment and decrement the subscript of I? Applicant-provided clarity and description of purpose and citation from specification would be helpful for the clarity of record and advancing prosecution.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
All the limitations recited in claim 1 are entirely mental determinations and/or mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts and calculations are considered abstract ideas and therefore not eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas).” Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II 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 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 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.”
There are no additional elements recited in claim 1. All limitations recited in claim 1 are either mental determinations and/or mathematical concepts.
One of ordinary skill would posit the method would be performed on a generic computer. However, there is no indication that the limitations in the claim, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). There are no limitations or additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, any generically applied additional elements such as performing the method on a computer or processor is insufficient to provide significantly more. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. All dependent claims merely recite mental determinations and/or mathematical concepts, and do not amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are objected to as they are rejected under 35 USC 101. If claims 1-18 overcome said 35 USC 101 rejection, claims 1-18 would be allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record are:
Wang et al. (River Flood Risk Model - doi.org/10.3390/w14010057), Cavalcante et al. (US 20130116920 A1), Witriol et al. (US 20250182491 A1), and Maltby (US 20120051603 A1), and Witriol (US 12536906 B1) hereinafter referred to as Wang, Cavalcante, Witriol, Maltby, and Witriol (2).
Wang discloses a flood model to simulate floods using a Muskingum model, MIKE, and two-dimensional hydrodynamic model in combination with GIS data to describe the effect on roads to produce evacuation plans.
Cavalcante discloses a travel routing system using a geographical database and flood simulator using meteorological data to determine the routes. Zones of flood risk are produced by the routing system which indicate high risk flood zones versus no risk zones. The system routes vehicles based on the flood risk.
Witriol discloses a road condition tagging system which tags, and stores in a database, conditions such as road segment lengths and widths, flood zone information, and road junction or intersection information for use in planning a route for a vehicle.
Waltby discloses a data base which compares old and new flood maps to determine which areas have changed. Waltby teaches street segments that may be associated with flood zone changes.
Witriol (2) discloses a system for managing one or more vehicles based on context information including hazard information and performing active measures based on said hazard information. Vehicle information including its size and weight are included in consideration of routing based on hazards.
None of the prior art alone nor in combination reasonably teach or suggest the following limitations from claim 1:
determining a road information matrix and a resettlement zone information matrix based on the time-varying vector map of the flood-affected area, wherein the road information matrix comprises: a segment junction status matrix, a segment length matrix, a segment width matrix, a segment traffic index matrix, and a segment grade matrix;
by applying a custom matrix criterion based on the road information matrix, the resettlement zone information matrix, the location information of transport vehicles within the flood-affected area, and the transport vehicle dataset, and considering time-related variations of a flooded road matrix, road emergencies, road collapse incidents, and areas of mud-covered roads, defining a vehicle driving direction as a specified forward direction and a reverse driving direction as a specified reverse direction, thus determining an update mode for a road time-varying matrix;
wherein the custom matrix criterion is defined as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
27
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
an update mode for the road time-varying matrix during a time-related variation of the flooded road matrix is as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
57
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
an update mode for the road time-varying matrix during a road emergency is as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
36
297
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
an update mode for the road time-varying matrix during a road collapse incident is as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
57
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
;
an update mode for the road time-varying matrix when mud covers a road is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
minimizing an arrival time of a last evacuated transport vehicle and with an edge region traffic density, a total vehicle count in resettlement zones, and vehicle speeds on various roads as constraints.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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 on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights