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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 17, 2022. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on November 21, 2023, January 8, 2024, and March 31, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, claim 16 is directed toward a system, and claim 17 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 16, and 17 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A method performed by one or more data processing apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining a physics-based ocean simulation model that specifies a plurality of simulation parameters (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
obtaining data characterizing an ocean in a geographical region (this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
determining initial values of the plurality of simulation parameters based on data characterizing the ocean in the geographical region (a person may mentally determine initial simulation parameters based on observing the obtained data); and
determining adjusted values of the plurality of simulation parameters based on data characterizing the ocean in the geographical region (a person may mentally adjust the simulation parameters based on the obtained data), comprising:
performing a simulation using the initial values of the plurality of simulation parameters to determine an initial simulation output for the ocean in the geographical region (a person may receive data output from a software model);
evaluating a task-specific objective function that is based on a measure of disagreement between:
(i) the initial simulation output determined by the simulation, and
(ii) a target value for the ocean in the geographical region (a person may mentally determine a difference between the initial simulation output and a target value); and
based on the evaluation of the task-specific objective function, determining adjusted values of the plurality of simulation parameters of the physics-based ocean simulation model (a person may mentally determine updated parameters based on the previous mental analysis).
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 16 and 17, which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the mental processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 16, and 17 recite the additional elements of a software model, one or more computers, one or more storage devices, and a non-transitory computer program product. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically, all of these limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements 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 in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 16, and 17 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-15 and 18-20 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter and may be found allowable after the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is addressed. Examiner encourages Applicant to discuss potential amendments to overcome the rejections via an interview.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The combination of claim limitations performing a simulation using the initial values of the plurality of simulation parameters to determine an initial simulation output for the ocean in the geographical region; evaluating a task-specific objective function that is based on a measure of disagreement between: (i) the initial simulation output determined by the simulation, and (ii) a target value for the ocean in the geographical region; and based on the evaluation of the task-specific objective function, determining adjusted values of the plurality of simulation parameters of the physics-based ocean simulation model of claim 1 and the corresponding limitations in claims 16 and 17, when considered with other claim features, renders the independent claims, as well as their dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record neither discloses nor teaches the claimed iterative process of achieving a final region-specific physics-based ocean simulation model.
Examiner has failed to find any particularly relevant prior art. Some generally relevant background art includes U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0048788 which pertains to iteratively updating a current ocean state forecast model and U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0182357 which pertains to tuning parameters for a given model. Neither of these references nor any others have been found separate or together to teach or render obvious the claimed subject matter. For at least these reasons, the claims are found to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666