DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 10 are presented for examination. Claim 1 stands currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 9 October 2025 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 7 argues:
When properly considered as a whole, the present application is not directed to an abstract idea, but to a technological improvement in computer-based environmental monitoring systems that enable real-time, cross-domain risk assessment for buildings influenced by groundwater changes.
This argument is unpersuasive. The real-time, cross-domain risk assessment as claimed is the identified mathematical concept. That is, the mathematical association and influence relationship between the data is recitation of mathematical subject matter. Accordingly, Examiner has found the improvement is towards this mathematical assessment and thus not technological1.
Applicant remarks page 7 further argues:
Current claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Although the claims involve processing groundwater and building data, they recite a specific technical process that transforms raw sensor data into actionable, real-time risk predictions through a spatial-temporal mapping algorithm and a hydrological simulation model.
This argument is unpersuasive. The spatial-temporal mapping algorithm corresponds with the identified judicially excepted mathematical concept. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded that the claims are allegedly not directed towards this abstract idea identified by Examiner.
Applicant remarks page 7 further argues:
Firstly, groundwater level data and building data are collected by a sensor, which means that data collection is not just about general data collection, but about obtaining real-time, precise measurements of the physical world through a dedicated physical sensor.
This argument is unpersuasive. MPEP §2106.05(g) provides guidance for evaluating data gathering limitations:
(1) Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known. ….
(2) Whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention). ….
(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). ….
Here, the sensor is not recited with any significant degree of specificity. Accordingly, the claimed “sensor” encompasses all sensors including every possible well-known sensor. Furthermore, the lack of any specificity means the claimed “sensor” imposes hardly any limits at all, let alone the significant/meaningful limits of MPEP 2106.05(g). Lastly, every implementation of the identified judicially excepted mathematical concept (i.e. the algorithm establishing a relationship between groundwater level data and building data) requires obtaining groundwater data and building data. See also Applicant Remarks page 8 “’collecting groundwater level data and building data’ is one of the necessary technical features and serves as objective input data.”). Obtaining this data necessarily requires some measurement device which would otherwise be known as a “sensor” of some form. Therefore, considering all three factors of MPEP §2106.05(g) they all clearly indicate the recited “sensor” and “collecting” correspond with insignificant extra solution activity.
Applicant remarks page 7 further argues:
Both the building and the groundwater are real entities.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The building and groundwater are physical entities, but the groundwater data and building data is just data. Compare with Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant remarks page 8 further argues:
This application not only relies on computer systems, but also relies on physical equipment such as sensors to observe and monitor the actual groundwater level and buildings, and cannot be achieved solely by the intellectual activities of the human brain.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Examiner’s §101 rejection has identified judicially excepted mathematical concepts which is unrelated to a human brain. Applicant appears to be arguing against an assertion of mental processes, which is at best unrelated to the §101 rejection asserted by Examiner here.
Applicant remarks page 8 further argues:
Secondly, the location coordinate of the groundwater level data and the position coordinate of the building are measured by the global position system.
This argument is unpersuasive.
A generic recitation of a global positioning system (GPS) amounts to another generic recitation of a sensor. Use of a generically recited sensor does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Applicant remarks page 8 further argues:
Moreover, the device further includes a geographic information system and a graph database server.
This argument is unpersuasive. MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Applicant remarks page 9 further argues:
Thirdly, in the present application, a data interaction interface is preset at a location of the three-dimensional building in the visualization map and the data interaction interface is implemented by a data interface. In the present application, the interface integrates a real-time data display window, an automatic prompt window, and an alarm indicator. This is a specialized human-computer interaction interface designed for risk management.
This argument is unpersuasive. The “interface” is generically recited. MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Applicant page 9 further argues alleged characteristics of the interface which are not recited in the claims.
Applicant remarks page 9-10 further argues:
Further, the present application is implemented by an electronic device includes a processor, a memory, and a bus configured to perform: ….
This argument is unpersuasive. MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Applicant’s remarks pages 10-11 merely repeat variations of the above arguments.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the present invention has also been examined in the Chinese Patent Application No. 202410501575.5, filed on April 25, 2024, which is actually the priority document of the present application. The Chinese Patent Application No. 202410501575.5 successfully proceeded to grant after substantive examination by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). During prosecution, the CNIPA raised and resolved novelty and inventive-step issues, but no subject matter eligibility concerns were identified.
This argument is unpersuasive. The §101 subject matter eligibility requirements in the U.S. are different in some respects from those of CNIPA and Chinese law. The relevant §101 inquiry at the USPTO is governed by US law.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “measured by a global position system.” However, the Specification never mentions a global position system (GPS), nor does the Specification mention measuring a location coordinate. Specification paragraph 89 discloses “geographic information system (GIS)” but a GIS system is not equivalent to a GPS measuring device. Accordingly, the Specification lacks appropriate written description to support the claim language ““measured by a global position system” now recited.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning, …, the knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method comprising:
…
configuring a groundwater level change at different time points obtained from the groundwater level data as a first entity, configuring a structural change of the building at different time points obtained from the building data as a second entity, and establishing, by a geographic information system, a relationship between the groundwater level data and the building data through spatial and temporal relationships; wherein establishing the relationship between the groundwater level data and the building data through spatial and temporal relationships means establishing the relationship between the groundwater level data and the building data based on a same spatial position and a same time point, so that the groundwater level data and the building data are combined;
according to an association between the groundwater level data and the building data, extracting an influence relationship of the first entity on the second entity, and determining an influence degree of the first entity on the second entity;
configuring the first entity, the influence relationship, the second entity and the influence degree as a relationship quadruple between the groundwater level and the building, and creating, …, a cross-domain knowledge graph based on the relationship quadruple;
…, and according to the data information updated in real time by the cross-domain knowledge graph, counting a risk situation of each building in the cross-domain knowledge graph according to preset rules, and configuring the risk situation as risk warning information for the building;
….
Establishing a relationship between groundwater level data and building data to combine the data corresponds with defining a mathematical relationship between the data. Mathematical relationships are mathematical concepts.
The mathematical association and influence relationship between the data is further recitation of mathematical subject matter. The influence relationship refers to a mathematical relationship. Extracting the influence relationship is a mathematical operation.
Configuring the first entity, the influence relationship, the second entity, and influence degree as a relationship quadruple is a mathematical construction.
Counting a risk situation according to preset rules corresponds with mathematical operations and mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
executed by an electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the bus is configured to realize connection and communication between the memory and the processor, the memory stores instructions executable by the processor, and when the instructions are executed by the processor, the processor executes the knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method; …
collecting, by a sensor, groundwater level data and building data; wherein the groundwater level data comprises a location coordinate and time series data of groundwater level corresponding to the location coordinate, and the location coordinate is measured by a global position system; the building data comprises a position coordinate of a building and structural information of the building at different time points; the position coordinate of the building is configured to indicate a position of the building; the structural information of the building is configured to indicate an internal structure of the building, and the structural information comprises a structural condition of a foundation, a structural condition of a wall; the position coordinate of the building is measured by the global position system;
…
…, by a graph database server, …
…
updating data information of the cross-domain knowledge graph in real time, …
…
based on the position coordinate of the building, overlaying the cross-domain knowledge graph onto a georeferenced three-dimensional building map to generate an interactive visualization map; wherein the preset building three-dimensional map comprises the position coordinate of the building and a three-dimensional building at the location coordinate; and
presetting a data interaction interface at a location of the three-dimensional building in the visualization map; wherein the data interaction interface comprises real-time data display, warning prompts, alarm prompts and data query, and the data interaction interface is implemented by a data interface.
The graph database server, processor, memory, and bus are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Collecting data by a “sensor” or GPS is a generic recitation of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Updating this data (AKA real-time) in an unspecified manner is merely ongoing data collection.
Building a visualization map comprising the position coordinate and 3D building is outputting the results of the identified abstract idea. The data interaction interface of the visualization map comprising “real-time data display, warning prompts, alarm prompts and data query” corresponds with outputting respective results of the identified abstract idea. The level of specificity is a generic display of data by a data interface without any detail on how the resulting display is to be achieved beyond identifying the information the display is supposed to contain. Merely outputting a data result of an abstract idea is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
collecting, by a sensor, groundwater level data and building data; wherein the groundwater level data comprises a location coordinate and time series data of groundwater level corresponding to the location coordinate, and the location coordinate is measured by a global position system; the building data comprises a position coordinate of a building and structural information of the building at different time points; the position coordinate of the building is configured to indicate a position of the building; the structural information of the building is configured to indicate an internal structure of the building, and the structural information comprises a structural condition of a foundation, a structural condition of a wall; the position coordinate of the building is measured by the global position system;
…
updating data information of the cross-domain knowledge graph in real time, …
…
based on the position coordinate of the building, overlaying the cross-domain knowledge graph onto a georeferenced three-dimensional building map to generate an interactive visualization map; wherein the preset building three-dimensional map comprises the position coordinate of the building and a three-dimensional building at the location coordinate; and
presetting a data interaction interface at a location of the three-dimensional building in the visualization map; wherein the data interaction interface comprises real-time data display, warning prompts, alarm prompts and data query, and the data interaction interface is implemented by a data interface.
These limitations were all analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(g) in step 2A(ii) above.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of data gathering “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.”
US patent 5,850,560 Kang, et al. [herein “Kang”] column 1 lines 20-22 teach “It is of course conventional to display information and results of an operation performed by the computer as an image on a video monitor.” Accordingly, displaying the data interface on a computer monitor is considered conventional.
Accordingly, there is proper Berkheimer evidence for the limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(g) in step 2A(ii) above.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 1, wherein the configuring the groundwater level change at different time points obtained from the groundwater level data as the first entity comprises:
…
comparing the groundwater level data at a current time point with the groundwater level data at a previous time point, and determining the groundwater level change at the current time point according to a comparison result to obtain the groundwater level change at each location coordinate at each time point in the time series; and
configuring the groundwater level change at each location coordinate at each time point in the time series as the first entity.
Comparing the data to determine a change is a mathematical operation. Configuring the groundwater change as a first entity corresponds with a mathematical identification of the result as a first entity.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
acquiring the time series data of the groundwater level of each location coordinate to obtain the groundwater level data of each location coordinate at each time point in the time series;
Collecting data in an unspecified manner is a generic recitation of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
acquiring the time series data of the groundwater level of each location coordinate to obtain the groundwater level data of each location coordinate at each time point in the time series;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of data gathering “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.”
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 1, wherein the configuring the structural change of the building at different time points obtained from the building data as the second entity comprises:
…
comparing the structural information at a current time point with the structural information at a previous time point to determine the structural change of the building at the current time point to obtain the structural change of each building at each time point in the time series; and
configuring the structural change of each building at each time point in the time series as the second entity.
Comparing information to previous time points to determine a change is a mathematical operation. Configuring the structural building change as a second entity corresponds with a mathematical identification of the result as a second entity.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Collecting data in an unspecified manner is a generic recitation of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
acquiring the structural information of different time series of each building to obtain the structural information of each building at each time point in the time series;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of data gathering “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.”
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 1, wherein the establishing the relationship between the groundwater level data and the building data through spatial and temporal relationships comprises:
…
based on a same time point, establishing a corresponding relationship between the structural information of the building at different time points and the time series data of the groundwater level corresponding to the building.
Establishing a relationship between information corresponds with determining a mathematical relationship.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
according to the position coordinate of the building, obtaining the time series data of the groundwater level corresponding to the location coordinate within a preset area range of the position coordinate from the groundwater level data; and
Obtaining time series data within a preset range collecting data in an unspecified manner. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
according to the position coordinate of the building, obtaining the time series data of the groundwater level corresponding to the location coordinate within a preset area range of the position coordinate from the groundwater level data; and
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of data gathering “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.”
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 4, wherein the according to the association between the groundwater level data and the building data, extracting the influence relationship of the first entity on the second entity, and determining the influence degree of the first entity on the second entity comprises:
based on the association between the groundwater level data and the building data, taking the building as a benchmark, inputting the time series data of the groundwater level within the preset area range of the building and the building data into a preset hydrological model;
simulating an influence of the groundwater level change on a structure of the building by the preset hydrological model, so as to obtain the influence relationship of the first entity on the second entity;
in response to that the first entity has the influence relationship on the second entity, according to the association between the groundwater level data and the building data, obtaining the groundwater level data within the preset area range of the building as influence degree judgment data; and
comparing the influence degree judgment data with a preset influence degree threshold comparison table to obtain the influence degree of the first entity on the second entity; wherein the preset influence degree threshold comparison table comprises a building structure name, a tolerable groundwater level height threshold range corresponding to the building structure name, and an influence degree corresponding to the tolerable groundwater level height threshold range.
Inputting data into a hydrological model is a mathematical step of calculations of the hydrological mathematical model.
Simulating an influence of the groundwater level change on a hydrological model to obtain the influence relationship is obtaining a corresponding mathematical relationship.
Obtaining groundwater level data as an influence degree judgment data corresponds to a recited step of mathematical algorithm/calculations.
Comparing data with a threshold comparison table is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 1, wherein the updating data information of the cross-domain knowledge graph in real time, and according to the data information updated in real time by the cross-domain knowledge graph, counting the risk situation of each building in the cross-domain knowledge graph according to preset rules, and configuring the risk situation as risk warning information for the building comprises:
…, and predicting a new influence relationship of the first entity on the second entity and a new influence degree of the first entity on the second entity based on the change data;
…
according to the real-time data information in the cross-domain knowledge graph, counting the risk situation of each building based on the preset rules, and configuring the risk situation of each building as the risk warning information for the building.
Predicting an influence relationship corresponds with calculating a mathematical relationship.
Counting the risk situation corresponds with performing mathematical operations/calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
acquiring change data of the first entity and the second entity in real time in the cross-domain knowledge graph, ….
updating the change data, the new influence relationship and the new influence degree as real-time data information to the cross-domain knowledge graph; and
Updating this data (AKA real-time) in an unspecified manner is merely ongoing data collection. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
acquiring change data of the first entity and the second entity in real time in the cross-domain knowledge graph, ….
updating the change data, the new influence relationship and the new influence degree as real-time data information to the cross-domain knowledge graph; and
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples of data gathering “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.”
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
10. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing at least one instruction, wherein when the at least one instruction is executed by a processor in an electronic device, the knowledge graph-driven groundwater-oriented method for building risk warning according to claim 1 is implemented.
The processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) are analyzed the same under step 2B as under step 2A(ii) above.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) set forth in this Office action.
Examiner has previously presented a statement of reasons for allowance in the office action dated 11 July 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 22 October 2025
1 In the context of §101 subject matter eligibility, technological merely means not one of the judicially excepted categories of abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a).