DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on 12/11/2025 for application number 17/828,546. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Applicant’s Remarks, Amendments to specification and claims.
Examiner Notes the following: claims 1 and 4-7 have been amended, and claims 2-3 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-7 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations:
In at least claim 1, “wherein after the judging first comprehensive simulation capabilities of the multiple experimental models…calculating absolute values… weighting the different statistical indexes… establishing a second multi-dimensional spatial… judging second comprehensive simulation… identifying a target experimental model…”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The Office has not received a figure 7, as disclosed in par. 40a and 55a.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 4-7 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 claims 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.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure of the instant application does not provide support for “… using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting”. More specifically, the disclosure does not disclose using the target experimental model for weather forecasting. Additionally, it is not clear from the disclosure what “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting” is directed to or is limited by. For example, “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting,” could mean creating a forecast of the weather using the model, logging data about the weather using the model, figuring out the model to be used, further updating the model to be used for weather forecasting, or other possible uses of a model for weather forecasting. As such, claim 1 is 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.
Claims 4-7, effectively depends on claim 1, and are rejected for the reasons given above.
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, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the Alice Framework Step 1, claims 1-7 recite a method and, therefore, is a process.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A big data evaluation method, comprising steps of:
determining evaluated data corresponding to multiple experimental models, reference data and different statistical indexes for data evaluation according to a preset experimental requirement;
performing comparative calculation according to the evaluated data, the reference data and the different statistical indexes to obtain corresponding numerical values of the different statistical indexes;
normalizing the numerical values of the different statistical indexes to obtain normalized data of the numerical values;
establishing a first multi-dimensional spatial coordinate system according to the normalized data of the numerical values, and determining distance values between the preset evaluation data and the reference data according to the first multi-dimensional spatial coordinate system; and
judging first comprehensive simulation capabilities of the multiple experimental models according to the distance values;
wherein after the judging first comprehensive simulation capabilities of the multiple experimental models according to the distance values, the big data evaluation method further comprises:
calculating absolute values of differences between normalized data corresponding to the evaluated data and normalized data of the reference data;
weighting the different statistical indexes according to the absolute values to obtain weighted statistical indexes;
establishing a second multi-dimensional spatial coordinate system according to the weighted statistical indexes, and determining Euclidean distances between the evaluated data and the reference data according to the second multi-dimensional spatial coordinate system: and
judging second comprehensive simulation capabilities of the multiple experimental models according to the Euclidean distances; and
wherein the big data evaluation method further comprises:
identifying a target experimental model exhibiting a maximum level in the first or second comprehensive simulation capabilities from the multiple experimental models, and
using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting.
The above underlined limitations are related to evaluating the capability and performance of multiple models which amount to mathematical calculations and relationships that falls under the “mathematical concepts” and “mental steps” of abstract ideas (see at least specification paragraphs 56-101). Wherein the operations done are shown in paragraphs 63-69 and 70-84: where par.45, 51, 63, and 70 are the determining step for mere data gathering; where par.46, 51, 64, 68-69, and 72 shows the expression for the numerical values of the statistical indexes; where par.47, 52, 65 and 73-76, show the expression for normalizing the statistical indexes; where par.48, 53, 66 and 77-80, show the establishing the spatial coordinate system and calculating the distance; and where par.49, 54, 67 and 81-84, is merely directed to judging/picking/identifying the smaller of DISO values which can be done in the human mind. See paragraphs 79 for Euclidean distance and 85-91 for the expressions for weighting the statistical indexes. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, claim 1 recites the following additional elements of “determining evaluated data, reference data and different statistical indexes for data evaluation according to a preset experimental requirement” and “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting“; However, the additional elements of “determining evaluated data, reference data and different statistical indexes for data evaluation according to a preset experimental requirement” and are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities for mere data gathering. The additional element of “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting“ is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as merely applying the model to weather forecasting) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that individually or in combination, 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, the additional elements of determining evaluated data, reference data and different statistical indexes for data evaluation according to a preset experimental requirement are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities for mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element of “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting“ is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as merely applying the model to weather forecasting) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, Claims 4-7 recite further steps and details to evaluating the capability and performance of multiple models and falls within the “mathematical Concepts” and/or “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas.
For Claim 4, it is directed to the math to calculate the numerical values of the statistical indexes. See paragraph 68-69. In particular claims 4 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
For Claim 5, it is directed to the formula for normalizing the numerical values of the statistical indexes. In particular claims 5 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
For Claim 6, it is directed to the formula for determining the Euclidean distance between reference and evaluation data. In particular claims 6 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
For Claim 7, it is directed to the formula for determining the Weighted Euclidean distance between reference and evaluation data. In particular claims 6 does not include additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes that no figure 7 was submitted with respect to the applicant’s drawing amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p.8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the specification and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification and claim objections of the Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p.8-9 and 13, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112 and 103 of the Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p.7-8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The submission of the amendments do not include a figure 7. As such, the objection to the drawings in the Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 have been maintained
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p.9-13, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to claim 1’s newly added limitations of “identifying a target experimental model…and using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve [the] accuracy of weather forecasting”. However, the disclosure of the instant application does not define or disclose “using the target experimental model for weather forecasting to improve accuracy of weather forecasting”, and is merely applying the generic model to weather forecasting. As such, the claims are rejected as shown above. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant' s assertion to the contrary for at least the reasons and rejections given above
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 Kenny K. Bui whose telephone number is (571)270-0604. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Monday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm on Tuesday to Friday ET.
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, Andrew T Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/KENNY K. BUI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)270-0604
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182