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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 11/19/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/19/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 9-12 of the remark filed on 11/19/2025 that “… Here, the alleged abstract idea is not recited in the claims. The system claimed utilizes real-time data to make weather predictions and notify the public of these predictions. The instant claims are directed to a real-world implementation of weather prediction and warning system. There are no specific mathematical formulations or mathematical relationships expressed in the claims. Furthermore, accurately predicting the weather
cannot be performed in the human mind. The claims do not recite mathematical concepts or limitations that can be performed in the human mind as illustrated below. … The claims here do not recite simple observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. … The weather model simulation based on real-time data and providing the public with weather impact analysis and recommendations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper. As such, this limitation is not directed to a mental process, and the claims again are subject matter eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “generating a baseline weather model by: comparing long-term climatological averages to evolving current-year atmospheric data”; “applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year”; “analyzing the historic weather data across an historic timeline”: “identifying recurring patterns within a jet stream and determining weather-cycle data indicative of repeating weather patterns”; “defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data”; “generating a perturbed weather model by perturbing the baseline weather model based on the real-time weather data”; and “generating a weather prediction model for weather forecasting based on the perturbed weather model” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “determining weather impact based on the weather prediction model” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “determining public recommendations to reduce the estimated property damage and/or the recovery impact” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. A human mind can observe and evaluate collected real-time weather data, and make judgments and opinions and provide real-time weather prediction. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 12-14 of the remark filed that “… The present claims include a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. When considering the claim as a whole, as required by the MPEP and specifically called out in the August 4th Reminder, the claims include a practical application of any purportedly abstract idea. Even if the claims are considered to be directed to a mathematical concepts and mental processes and even if that is an abstract idea (which point Applicant disputes), the claims integrate this purportedly abstract idea into a practical application by providing for a particular technique of predicting and notifying the public of real-time weather impact that imposes a meaningful limit on any purported judicial exception. … As such, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant submits that weather prediction is in fact a technical field. The claims recite the technical field and make improvements to the technical field. As such, the instant claims, when viewed as a whole, integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. …”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables; and obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide are considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining weather data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Obtaining real-time weather data and historic weather data, analyzing the real-time weather data using the historic weather data, generating a weather prediction model, predicting and estimating the weather impact that comprises property damage and/or recovery impact are routine in monitoring and predicting weather impact and public recommendations. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), obtaining weather data is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year; wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact; and notifying a public of the weather impact, and the public recommendations are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement in providing the technical improvement to weather forecasting models by utilizing machine learning to generate more accurate forecasting models and provide notifications and recommendations to the public to minimize the impact of the impending weather relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on pages 15-16 of the remark filed that “… The total system necessary for predicting weather cycle patterns is vast and not present in "nearly every" computer. Furthermore, the arrangement of components necessary for gathering weather data across the globe for predicting cyclic weather patterns is an unconventional arrangement of components. As such, the claim limitations provide "significantly more" than any identified abstract ideas. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which point Applicant does not concede), the claims include "significantly more" than that abstract idea and as such are patentable under Step 2B of the Alice-Mayo test.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitations of applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year; wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact; and notifying a public of the weather impact, and the public recommendations are well-understood and conventional. Weather sensors collecting weather data for real- time weather forecasting and warning are routine in observing weather and providing real-time adaptive weather predictions across a weather cycle. Therefore, the claims do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-8 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 claim(s) 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.
With regards to the claim, the limitations “comparing long-term climatological averages to evolving current-year atmospheric data”; “applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year”; and “defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data” were 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear what long-term climatological averages, evolving current-year atmospheric data, cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year, and defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data are.
Dependent claims 2-8 are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirements.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method of providing real-time adaptive weather predictions across a recurring atmospheric weather cycle, the method comprising:
obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables;
generating a baseline weather model by: comparing long-term climatological averages to evolving current-year atmospheric data;
applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year; and
analyzing the historic weather data across an historic timeline by at least one machine learning algorithm by:
identifying recurring patterns within a jet stream and determining weather-cycle data indicative of repeating weather patterns; and
defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data;
obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide;
generating a perturbed weather model by perturbing the baseline weather model based on the real-time weather data;
generating a weather prediction model for weather forecasting based on the perturbed weather model;
determining weather impact based on the weather prediction model,
wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact;
determining public recommendations to reduce the estimated property damage and/or the recovery impact; and
notifying a public of the weather impact, and the public recommendations.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 9 and 15).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claims, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they recite limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “generating a baseline weather model by: comparing long-term climatological averages to evolving current-year atmospheric data”;
“applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year”;
“analyzing the historic weather data across an historic timeline”:
“identifying recurring patterns within a jet stream and determining weather-cycle data indicative of repeating weather patterns”;
“defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data”;
“generating a perturbed weather model by perturbing the baseline weather model based on the real-time weather data”; and
“generating a weather prediction model for weather forecasting based on the perturbed weather model” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining weather impact based on the weather prediction model” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining public recommendations to reduce the estimated property damage and/or the recovery impact” is a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claims that recite a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the claim comprises the following additional elements:
obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables; applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year; at least one machine learning algorithm; obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide; wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact; and
notifying a public of the weather impact, and the public recommendations.”
The additional elements “obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables”; and obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide” represent necessary data gathering and do not integrate the limitations into a practical application. The additional elements “applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year”; “wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact; and “notifying a public of the weather impact, and the public recommendations.” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional element “one machine learning algorithm” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claims, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables; and obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. obtaining weather data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, estimating property damage and/or recovery impact; and notifying a public of the weather impact and the public recommendations are disclosed by “Gupta US 20150285952”, [0004], [0005], [0009], [0077], [0080]); and “Crawford US 8204846 B1”, Col. 3, Lines 9-19; Col. 10, Lines 37-41; Col. 11, Lines 40-48.
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Gupta US 20150285952”, “Phillips US 20180364394”, “Chen CN 112799156 A”, “Carpenter US 20040215394”, “Luessi US 20080288417”, “Crawford US 8204846 B1”, and “Xu US 20200110185”.
As to claims 1, 9, and 15, Gupta teaches obtaining historic weather data from weather databases including atmospheric variables (Gupta, [0043], [0045], [0047], [0050]),
obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations (Gupta, Abstract, [0009], [0077]);
determining weather impact based on the weather model (Gupta, [0004], [0005]);
analyzing the historic weather data across an historic timeline (Gupta, [0043], [0045], [0047]).
Xu teaches obtaining real-time weather data from a plurality of weather sensors located at various locations worldwide (Xu, [0054], [0057], [0099], [0184]).
Crawford teaches wherein the weather impact comprises estimated property damage and/or recovery impact; and notifying a public of the weather impact and the public recommendation (Crawford, Col. 3, Lines 9-33; Col. 4, Lines 15-34; Col. 10, Lines 37-41; Col. 11, Lines 40-48);
determining public recommendations to reduce the estimated property damage and/or the recovery impact (Crawford, Col. 3, Lines 9-19; Col. 11, Lines 40-48; Col. 15, Lines 31-38).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “generating a baseline weather model by: comparing long-term climatological averages to evolving current-year atmospheric data”;
“applying a cycle-specific index representative of an active atmospheric pattern year”;
“identifying recurring patterns within a jet stream and determining weather-cycle data indicative of repeating weather patterns; and defining a weather-cycle timeline by correlations of weather variables that quantify recurrence of the repeating weather patterns based on the weather-cycle data”;
“generating a perturbed weather model by perturbing the baseline weather model based on the real-time weather data”; and
“generating a weather prediction model for weather forecasting based on the perturbed weather model” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 9, and 15.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 1-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Mecilalski US 20200355845” teaches “A weather forecasting system has a data processing system that receives weather data from one or more sources and processes such data in conjunction with a weather forecasting algorithm in order to forecast weather for one or more geographic regions. In this regard, the weather data is input into a machine learning algorithm, which applies learned weights and relationships to the inputs in order to calculate at least one score indicating a probability that precipitation or other weather event will occur in the future within a certain time period (e.g., within the next 1 hour or some other unit of time) in one or more geographic regions. For each such geographic region, the weather forecasting logic may also predict the extent to which rain or other precipitation, lightning, or other weather event will occur during the time period.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863