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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 19/303,367 filed 4/13/2026. Claims 1-9 were amended in the reply filed 6/30/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 8 regarding claims 1-9: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the software per se rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Examiner has removed the software per se rejections from the 35 USC § 101 rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 8 regarding claims 1-9: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the abstract idea rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claimed computational operations cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claimed operations may take longer if performed in the human mind with pen and paper, merely “applying” such mental processes to a generic computer environment does not mean the operations should not be categorized as mental processes.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific improvement to geospatial data-processing technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In support of this, Applicant argues that the combination of claim elements is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. However, Examiner has categorized the additional elements as parts of a generic computer environment upon which the abstract is merely “applied,” not as well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Therefore, these arguments are moot.
Applicant further argues that the claims cannot be considered well-understood, routine, or conventional because of their novelty. As mentioned above, this argument is moot because Examiner has not categorized the additional elements as well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. In addition, novelty is not a standard used in determining the patent eligibility of an invention under 35 USC § 101. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for analyzing and managing potential steep slope areas, the method being performed by a server, the method comprising: receiving, by the server, a digital elevation model generated from ground observation data and a land-cover map generated from auxiliary spatial data, the digital elevation model having a resolution of 1 meter; calculating, by the server, a slope from the digital elevation model, and extracting pixels each having a slope of 34 degrees or more; generating centroids of the extracted pixels; performing clustering by applying a DBSCAN algorithm to the centroids to form one or more clusters, each of the one or more clusters consisting of at least 40 centroids, and deriving, from the one or more clusters, candidate areas each having an elevation difference of 5 meters or more; generating, for each of the candidate areas, a candidate steep-slope polygon by connecting outermost points of each of the candidate areas using a Concave Hull algorithm rather than a Convex Hull algorithm, so as to exclude an area that is not part of an actual steep slope, thereby generating candidate steep-slope polygons; calculating a rectangular envelope of each of the candidate steep-slope polygons, and selecting, from the candidate steep-slope polygons, one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons each having a longer side of the rectangular envelope of 20 meters or more, wherein the longer side of the rectangular envelope conservatively represents a length of a candidate steep-slope polygon having an irregular, non-rectangular form; setting an impact range for each of the one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons, wherein a buffer range is limited from one times a height of a steep slope to a predetermined maximum limit; performing a spatial overlay analysis to apply an exclusion condition in accordance with the Road Act and the Act on the Safety Control of Public Structures, and filtering out an unnecessary area; aggregating an estimated affected population by applying population data on a 100-meter grid basis, and identifying a major risk factor including a multi-use facility and a facility for the elderly and children; and visualizing, on a monitor, a hazardous area derived from the one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons, providing a management priority by ranking the hazardous area according to importance, and generating GIS-based visualization data and a report, wherein the impact range for each of the one or more selected candidate steep- slope polygons is determined based on the elevation difference and a size of a corresponding candidate steep-slope polygon, and a maximum of the impact range is limited to 50 meters. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations a ... method for analyzing and managing potential steep slope areas ... the method comprising: receiving ... a digital elevation model generated from ground observation data and a land-cover map generated from auxiliary spatial data, the digital elevation model having a resolution of 1 meter; calculating ... a slope from the digital elevation model, and extracting ... having a slope of 34 degrees or more; generating centroids ... performing clustering by applying a DBSCAN algorithm to the centroids to form one or more clusters, each of the one or more clusters consisting of at least 40 centroids, and deriving, from the one or more clusters, candidate areas each having an elevation difference of 5 meters or more; generating, for each of the candidate areas, a candidate steep-slope polygon by connecting outermost points of each of the candidate areas using a Concave Hull algorithm rather than a Convex Hull algorithm, so as to exclude an area that is not part of an actual steep slope, thereby generating candidate steep-slope polygons; calculating a rectangular envelope of each of the candidate steep-slope polygons, and selecting, from the candidate steep-slope polygons, one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons each having a longer side of the rectangular envelope of 20 meters or more, wherein the longer side of the rectangular envelope conservatively represents a length of a candidate steep-slope polygon having an irregular, non-rectangular form; setting an impact range for each of the one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons, wherein a buffer range is limited from one times a height of a steep slope to a predetermined maximum limit; performing a spatial overlay analysis to apply an exclusion condition in accordance with the Road Act and the Act on the Safety Control of Public Structures, and filtering out an unnecessary area; aggregating an estimated affected population by applying population data on a 100-meter grid basis, and identifying a major risk factor including a multi-use facility and a facility for the elderly and children; and visualizing ... a hazardous area derived from the one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons, providing a management priority by ranking the hazardous area according to importance, and generating GIS-based visualization data and a report, wherein the impact range for each of the one or more selected candidate steep-slope polygons is determined based on the elevation difference and a size of a corresponding candidate steep-slope polygon, and a maximum of the impact range is limited to 50 meters, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Mental Processes” (e.g., evaluations and judgments) and “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Mental Processes” (e.g., evaluations and judgments) and “Mathematical Concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 1, computer-implemented, a server, pixels, and a monitor, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 1, computer-implemented, a server, pixels, and a monitor, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-9 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-9 do not recite additional elements other than those recited in claim 1. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-9 do not recite additional elements other than those recited in claim 1. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-9 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. Examiner considers the following references the closest prior art to the claimed invention: Fang (U.S. Pat. No. 12,130,401), Qiu (U.S. Pat. No. 11,965,738), Hamada (translated Japanese name 濱田 俊介 on published document) (JP 7369264 B1), Zhang (CN 118628909 A), Zhou (CN 116777678 A), and Yang (KR 102237505 B1). However, Examiner has determined that a combination of these references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights