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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1 (and dependent claims 2-9) recite “A method for generating a phase-resolved ocean wave forecast with simultaneous ocean current estimation using data assimilation, the method comprising: (a) receiving, at one or more processors, a set of radar data corresponding to an ocean surface; (b) determining, by the one or more processors based on the set of radar data, a surface elevation, a surface potential, and an initial ocean current field of a portion of the ocean surface; (c) generating, by the one or more processors, an ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data based on the surface elevation, the surface potential, and the initial ocean current field; (d) applying, by the one or more processors, a phase-resolved nonlinear wave model to the ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data to generate a set of forecast ocean surface data; (e) receiving, at the one or more processors, a subsequent set of radar data corresponding to the ocean surface; (f) determining, by the one or more processors applying an ensemble Kalman filter, a subsequent surface elevation, a subsequent surface potential, and a subsequent ocean current field of the portion of the ocean surface based on the subsequent set of radar data; and (g) iteratively performing, by the one or more processors, steps (d) and (f) to generate a phase-resolved ocean wave forecast, wherein steps (d) and (f) are iteratively performed until a tolerance factor satisfies a tolerance threshold, and each subsequent iteration of steps (d) and (f) utilizes the subsequent ocean current field to generate the set of forecast ocean surface data.”
Claims 1-9, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “(a) receiving, at one or more processors, a set of radar data corresponding to an ocean surface; (b) determining, by the one or more processors based on the set of radar data, a surface elevation, a surface potential, and an initial ocean current field of a portion of the ocean surface; (c) generating, by the one or more processors, an ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data based on the surface elevation, the surface potential, and the initial ocean current field; (d) applying, by the one or more processors, a phase-resolved nonlinear wave model to the ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data to generate a set of forecast ocean surface data; (e) receiving, at the one or more processors, a subsequent set of radar data corresponding to the ocean surface; (f) determining, by the one or more processors applying an ensemble Kalman filter, a subsequent surface elevation, a subsequent surface potential, and a subsequent ocean current field of the portion of the ocean surface based on the subsequent set of radar data; and (g) iteratively performing, by the one or more processors, steps (d) and (f) to generate a phase-resolved ocean wave forecast, wherein steps (d) and (f) are iteratively performed until a tolerance factor satisfies a tolerance threshold, and each subsequent iteration of steps (d) and (f) utilizes the subsequent ocean current field to generate the set of forecast ocean surface data.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “(a) receiving, at one or more processors, a set of radar data corresponding to an ocean surface; (b) determining, by the one or more processors based on the set of radar data, a surface elevation, a surface potential, and an initial ocean current field of a portion of the ocean surface; (c) generating, by the one or more processors, an ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data based on the surface elevation, the surface potential, and the initial ocean current field; (d) applying, by the one or more processors, a phase-resolved nonlinear wave model to the ensemble of perturbed ocean surface data to generate a set of forecast ocean surface data; (e) receiving, at the one or more processors, a subsequent set of radar data corresponding to the ocean surface; (f) determining, by the one or more processors applying an ensemble Kalman filter, a subsequent surface elevation, a subsequent surface potential, and a subsequent ocean current field of the portion of the ocean surface based on the subsequent set of radar data; and (g) iteratively performing, by the one or more processors, steps (d) and (f) to generate a phase-resolved ocean wave forecast, wherein steps (d) and (f) are iteratively performed until a tolerance factor satisfies a tolerance threshold, and each subsequent iteration of steps (d) and (f) utilizes the subsequent ocean current field to generate the set of forecast ocean surface data.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 10 and 17, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 11-16 and 18-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0114] and [0115] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 27 February 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that at least the steps as claimed in claim 1 (as well as in claims 10 and 17) are integrated into a practical application at least by solving a technical problem of reducing the error associated with each predicted future state of the ocean surface without occupying significant processing resources. These techniques thereby improve upon other systems that generally fail to provide such accurate, timely predictions. However, this argument is not found persuasive because the claimed “receiving” and “applying” steps are directed towards the abstract idea and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the “determining” step by applying the Kalman filter which is considered as a mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 1 (as well as claims 10 and 17) and dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 thereon are remained rejected under 101 rejection as mentioned above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853