DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example, we recognize that the limitations “for each of the plurality of forecast locations, identifying a base rating based on the forecast date; calculating a pressure adjustment by: identifying atmospheric pressure conditions in the forecast location on a plurality of dates that include and immediately precede the forecast date; identifying a pressure component for each of the plurality of dates based on the identified atmospheric pressure conditions in the forecast location on date; calculating the pressure adjustment based on the identified pressure components for each of the dates that include and immediately precede the forecast date; identifying a past temperature adjustment and a past temperature component based on a past temperature metric indicative of temperatures in the forecast location over a first time period preceding the forecast date; calculating a temperature change based on the past temperature metric and a recent temperature metric that is indicative of temperatures in the forecast location over a second time period preceding the forecast date, wherein the second time period is shorter than the first time period; identifying a temperature change component based on the calculated temperature change; calculating a temperature change adjustment based on the identified past temperature component and the identified temperature change component; identifying a wind adjustment based on a forecasted wind speed in the forecast location on the forecast date; identifying a sky adjustment based on a forecast sky condition in the forecast location on the forecast date, a forecasted precipitation type in the forecast location on the forecast date, and/or the past temperature metric; and calculating the bass forecast rating indicative of the bass fishing conditions in the forecast location on the forecast date by adjusting the identified base rating based on the calculated pressure adjustment, the identified past temperature adjustment, the calculated temperature change adjustment, the identified wind speed adjustment, and the identified sky adjustment,” are abstract ideas as they are directed to a combination of mental process (such as identifying) and usage of mathematical concept (such as calculating). Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “a hardware computer processing unit (and associated media),” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer (and storage) for implementing the abstract idea. The claims also recite “outputting, vis a graphical user interface, a depiction of each of the plurality of forecast locations and the bass forecast ratings calculated for each of the plurality of locations,” but said limitation is an insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a hardware computer processing unit (and associated media),” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer (and storage) for implementing the abstract idea that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “outputting, vis a graphical user interface, a depiction of each of the plurality of forecast locations and the bass forecast ratings calculated for each of the plurality of locations,” but said limitation is an insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the desired data that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific and inventive system and method that uses a unique combination of data and rules to achieve a more accurate and useful result, constituting a patent-eligible improvements to computer functionality.
In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the claims are directed to bass forecasting, and there is no evidence of any improvement to computer functionality itself. In other words, how does bass forecasting necessarily improves how the computer functions? In fact, the method claims do not even recite any computer or processor to begin with. In the apparatus claim, the computer is merely being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea of bass forecasting.
Furthermore, as had been reiterated previously, the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “forecasting fishing condition” would not have made the claims automatically eligible under 35 USC 101. With lack of sufficient additional elements, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857