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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a data reception unit configured to”, “a terrain information application unit configured to”, and “a global radiation calculation unit configured to” recited in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 contains the trademark/trade name “Korea Meteorological Administration” in the context of the post-processing used. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the post processing algorithm used and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical relationships and mental processes) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of calculating solar radiation numerical data based on a fixed slope angle, the method comprising:
receiving solar radiation numerical data; (the act of receiving the data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g), the data itself is explicitly numerical and is later used for mathematical calculations)
removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data and applying detailed terrain information with a 100 m resolution to the solar radiation numerical data; (¶33-34 of the specification as filed describe the removal step as mathematical in nature including the equations that can be used for it, and as such, interpreting the claim language in light of the specification, removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data is done with mathematical calculations on that numerical data, so this feature falls within the scope of mathematical relationships. The same is true regarding applying detailed terrain information – this is done by following mathematical algorithms to execute numerical calculations according to equations.)
applying a fixed slope angle to the detailed terrain information to calculate a global radiation; and (this is performing mathematical calculations with geometry and physics equations to generate numerical results)
dividing the global radiation on the basis of at least one of a grid, a season, a month, a time of day, and a fixed slope angle to generate average data. (this is partitioning data based on mathematical relationships and using other numerical values to generate numerical output data).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computer of claim 8 and the units of claim 7), and 2) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (receiving numerical data). The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer or unit performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) 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. The specification that data is received is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include 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, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 recite only further details of the mathematical calculations performed.
Claims 7 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakawa (US 20100310116 A1) in view of Zhao (CN 110516816 A) and KSR rationale (E) Obvious to Try.
Regarding Claim 1:
Sasakawa teaches:
receiving solar radiation numerical data; (¶36 After the estimated solar radiation amount has been obtained as described above)
removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data and (¶31 The shadow determination means 12 determines a shadow area 4, utilizing a three-dimensional map model 2 of the three-dimensional map data 21 included in the synthetic data, and includes shadow calculation means 29 and cell determination means 30.; ¶39; ¶43 the determination of a shadow and the reflection of the result of the shadow determination for the cell 8 are performed before the calculation of a slope and the reflection of the result of the slope calculation for the cell 8; )
applying detailed terrain information [[…]] to the solar radiation numerical data; (¶36 After the estimated solar radiation amount has been obtained as described above, when the cell determination means 30 determines that the determination representative point 28 of the cell 8 belongs to the shadow area 4, the solar radiation amount is 0, or a predetermined rate is attenuated, and further the correction calculation using the slope correction coefficient is repeated, whereby the solar radiation amount for each cell 8 (evaluation component after terrain condition correction) is calculated; ¶40)
Sasakawa does not teach in particular, but Zhao teaches:
applying a fixed slope angle to the detailed terrain information to calculate a global radiation; and (¶32 The slope extraction means 32 sets, based on the three-dimensional map model 2, the slope information of each cell 8 in the area to be evaluated, that is, a representative slope angle and a representative slope direction of each cell 8. The slope correction coefficient setting means 33 sets a slope correction coefficient for each cell 8. The slope correction coefficient is adopted for use when the solar radiation amount to be received by each cell 8 with the representative slope angle and the representative slope direction is calculated from an assumed solar radiation amount that will be received by each cell 8 when the cells 8 are assumed to be horizontal planes.; ¶41 Finally, the solar radiation amount evaluation means 13 executes calculation of the solar radiation amount of the area to be evaluated based on the pixel value 5, the coordinate information, the attribute associated with a shadow, the slope correction coefficient of each cell 8, and the solar position; ¶41 the solar radiation amount is calculated from the estimated solar radiation amount, using the slope correction coefficient (step S10-4).; ¶42 the solar radiation amount is calculated from the estimated solar radiation amount using the shadow correction coefficient along with the slope correction coefficient)
dividing the global radiation on the basis of at least one of a grid, a season, a month, a time of day, and a fixed slope angle to generate average data. (¶38 the area setting means 27 sets the area, in which the solar radiation amount will be evaluated, based on partitions of the mesh 3, utilizing the map and the coordinate information included in the three-dimensional map data 21; ¶33 calculate the solar radiation amount itself in the area to be evaluated, and the solar radiation amount in the area to be evaluated is calculated by averaging the solar radiation amounts of the cells)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the satellite and topographical databases, along with their associated resolutions and calculations based on direct and scattered radiation, in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa, in order to enable estimation of surface temperature under cloudy conditions, and provide an important basis for the generation of all-weather surface temperature products (Zhao, Abstract). It further would have been obvious to modify the range of Zhao as described above, as such a modification would be obvious to try for the above stated reasons.
Regarding Claim 3:
Sasakawa does not teach in particular, but Zhao teaches:
wherein the solar radiation numerical data includes a first direct solar radiation and a first scattered solar radiation (p.5, surface incident solar radiation fRComprising direct solar radiation RbSky scattered radiation RdAnd adjacent terrain radiation Rr。)
having a 1.5 km spatial resolution. (p.5, The data of the stationary meteorological satellite is data with a spatial scale of 3-5 kilometers, and the DEM topographic data of the ALOS satellite is topographic data with a scale of 30 m; examiner notes that the difference in scale between the reference (3-5 km) and the claim (1.5 km) represents a close range that is obvious to try (see MPEP 2144.05, "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close."). The data must be at a set resolution, there are a finite number of databases of satellite data, and changing between 1.5km to 3km resolution can be done without significant impact on the calculations, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could have swapped between two such databases with a reasonable expectation of success.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the satellite and topographical databases, along with their associated resolutions and calculations based on direct and scattered radiation, in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa, in order to enable estimation of surface temperature under cloudy conditions, and provide an important basis for the generation of all-weather surface temperature products (Zhao, Abstract). It further would have been obvious to modify the range of Zhao as described above, as such a modification would be obvious to try for the above stated reasons.
Regarding Claim 4:
Sasakawa teaches:
wherein the applying includes removing the existing terrain effect [[...]] from the solar radiation numerical data by converting the first direct solar radiation and the first scattered solar radiation that reach an inclined surface to a second direct solar radiation and a second scattered solar radiation that reach a horizontal surface, respectively. (examiner notes that the scattered and direct radiation features are disclosed in the combination by Zhao as cited above for claim 3 ("surface incident solar radiation fRComprising direct solar radiation RbSky scattered radiation RdAnd adjacent terrain radiation Rr。"), which would then be operated upon by the calculations of Sasakawa as cited here; ¶32 The slope extraction means 32 sets, based on the three-dimensional map model 2, the slope information of each cell 8 in the area to be evaluated, that is, a representative slope angle and a representative slope direction of each cell 8. The slope correction coefficient setting means 33 sets a slope correction coefficient for each cell 8. The slope correction coefficient is adopted for use when the solar radiation amount to be received by each cell 8 with the representative slope angle and the representative slope direction is calculated from an assumed solar radiation amount that will be received by each cell 8 when the cells 8 are assumed to be horizontal planes.; ¶41 Finally, the solar radiation amount evaluation means 13 executes calculation of the solar radiation amount of the area to be evaluated based on the pixel value 5, the coordinate information, the attribute associated with a shadow, the slope correction coefficient of each cell 8, and the solar position; ¶41 the solar radiation amount is calculated from the estimated solar radiation amount, using the slope correction coefficient (step S10-4).; ¶42 the solar radiation amount is calculated from the estimated solar radiation amount using the shadow correction coefficient along with the slope correction coefficient)
Sasakawa does not teach in particular, but Zhao teaches:
terrain effect of a 1.5 km resolution (p.5, The data of the stationary meteorological satellite is data with a spatial scale of 3-5 kilometers, and the DEM topographic data of the ALOS satellite is topographic data with a scale of 30 m; examiner notes that the difference in scale between the reference (3-5 km) and the claim (1.5 km) represents a close range that is obvious to try (see MPEP 2144.05, "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close."). The data must be at a set resolution, there are a finite number of databases of satellite data, and changing between 1.5km to 3km resolution can be done without significant impact on the calculations, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could have swapped between two such databases with a reasonable expectation of success.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the satellite and topographical databases, along with their associated resolutions and calculations based on direct and scattered radiation, in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa, in order to enable estimation of surface temperature under cloudy conditions, and provide an important basis for the generation of all-weather surface temperature products (Zhao, Abstract). It further would have been obvious to modify the range of Zhao as described above, as such a modification would be obvious to try for the above stated reasons.
Regarding Claim 5:
Sasakawa teaches:
calculating solar radiation numerical data at 100 m intervals by applying a linear interpolation method to the solar radiation numerical data from which the existing terrain effect is removed; and (¶33 calculate the solar radiation amount itself in the area to be evaluated, and the solar radiation amount in the area to be evaluated is calculated by averaging the solar radiation amounts of the cells 8 in the area to be evaluated. The solar radiation amounts in a plurality of static satellite image data 1, 1, and . . . that differ in the photographing time are averaged, whereby the solar radiation amount in units of a suitable period of time, such as per 1 hour, per 1 day, and per 1 month, is calculated.)
generating the detailed terrain information with a 100 m resolution by applying a terrain effect with a 100 m resolution to the solar radiation numerical data at 100 m intervals. (¶37 Then, the map model combination means 10 of the calculation part 23 combines the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21 (step S2). The mesh setting means 25 sets the mesh 3 on the obtained combination data in accordance with plane coordinates (step S3). The mesh 3 is previously set in accordance with the ground resolution of the static satellite image data 1, for example.; ¶38 Also, the area setting means 27 sets the area, in which the solar radiation amount will be evaluated, based on partitions of the mesh 3, utilizing the map and the coordinate information included in the three-dimensional map data 21 (step S5).; ¶39 Thereafter, the shadow calculation means 29 specifies the solar position ...)
Sasakawa does not teach in particular, but Zhao teaches:
with a 100 m resolution (p.5, The data of the stationary meteorological satellite is data with a spatial scale of 3-5 kilometers, and the DEM topographic data of the ALOS satellite is topographic data with a scale of 30 m; examiner notes that the difference in scale between the reference (30 m) and the claim (100m ) represents a close range that is obvious to try (see MPEP 2144.05, "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close."). The data must be at a set resolution, there are a finite number of databases of satellite data, and changing between 30m and 100m resolution can be done without significant impact on the calculations, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could have swapped between two such databases with a reasonable expectation of success.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the satellite and topographical databases, along with their associated resolutions and calculations based on direct and scattered radiation, in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa, in order to enable estimation of surface temperature under cloudy conditions, and provide an important basis for the generation of all-weather surface temperature products (Zhao, Abstract). It further would have been obvious to modify the range of Zhao as described above, as such a modification would be obvious to try for the above stated reasons.
Regarding Claim 6:
Sasakawa teaches:
wherein the fixed slope angle is arbitrarily selected from between 0 degrees to 90 degrees. (¶14 representative slope angle and the representative slope direction of each cell 8 is calculated based on a difference in elevation data of the determination representative point 28 of the peripheral cells 8, whereby it can be judged.; examiner notes that this will inherently be between 0 and 90 degrees)
Regarding Claims 7 and 8:
Claims 7 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds set forth above for claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the satellite and topographical databases, along with their associated resolutions and calculations based on direct and scattered radiation, in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa, in order to enable estimation of surface temperature under cloudy conditions, and provide an important basis for the generation of all-weather surface temperature products (Zhao, Abstract). It further would have been obvious to modify the range of Zhao as described above, as such a modification would be obvious to try for the above stated reasons.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakawa (US 20100310116 A1) in view of Zhao (CN 110516816 A) and KSR rationale (E) Obvious to Try, and further in view of Shin (Shin, S., Lee, S. J., Noh, I., Kim, S. H., So, Y. Y., Lee, S., ... & Kim, K. R. (2020). Temperature and solar radiation prediction performance of high-resolution KMAPP model in agricultural areas: Clear sky case studies in Cheorwon and Jeonbuk Province. Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 22(4), 312-326.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sasakawa in view of Zhao does not teach in particular, but Shin teaches:
wherein the solar radiation numerical data is based on Korea Meteorological Administration Post-Processing (KMAPP) to which a scale detailing technique is applied. (Abstract, Generation of weather forecasts at 100 m resolution through a statistical downscaling process was implemented by Korea Meteorological Administration Post- Processing (KMAPP) system.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the downscaling and KMAPP system of Shin in the radiation estimation methodology of Sasakawa as modified by Zhao, in order to provide data for use in the application model as detailed regional forecast data (Shin, Abstract), thereby improving the accuracy of the output.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 113591297 A (downscales temperature grid data while also calculating solar radiation values in connection with this)
CN 113592737 A (calculates terrain correction effects for determining solar radiation)
KR 20210035562 A (generates a high-resolution (5m by 5m class) solar radiation energy map based on a digital map)
KR 20200083719 A (generally discusses solar radiation estimation without terrain correction)
KR 102018789 B1 (corrects the terrain details of data based on slope angles of terrain, but does so in the context of generating vegetation maps, not radiation maps)
KR 20180045401 A (describes determining "solar radiation energy according to the terrain is derived using ... the shading rate of a low-resolution WRF model", where shading rate is a terrain effect)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189