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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 12/22/2025 has been entered and made record. This application contains 20 pending claims.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-12, and 17 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Claims 2-4 and 9 have been amended, however, claim 9 is still objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the weather data is used to determine a wet globe temperature and a black globe temperature, and the wet globe temperature and the black globe temperature being used to determine the ambient wet bulb globe temperature” in claim 9 should read as “wherein the weather data is used to determine a wet globe temperature and a black globe temperature, and the wet globe temperature and the black globe temperature are being used to determine the ambient wet bulb globe temperature”.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 regarding claims interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claim 1-6, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims limitations recite function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function, and thus, the claims limitations are still interpreted as performed by a generic computer.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended, and the amended claims limitations overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 rejections in claim 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 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 page 10 the remark filed on 12/22/2025 that “Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 20 have been rejected by the Examiner as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 17 to avoid the rejection and to clearly avoid claiming an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. In claim 1, the steps of “determine a physical location of a user; an electronic data feed source of weather data for the physical location or a secondary location”; and “determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location or the secondary location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The steps of “assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the ambient wet bulb globe temperature”; and “alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
In claim 11, the steps of “determine a physical location of a user”, and “determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The steps of “generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached”, and “assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the wet bulb globe temperature and to save the wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp” are mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
In claim 17, the step of “determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black temperature, and the air temperature weather data and the air temperature” is a mental processes, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. The steps of “generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached”, and “alert a user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature equals or is greater than the wet bulb globe temperature limit” are mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 10 of the remark filed that “… The additional elements in claims 1, 11, and 17 integrate the invention into a practical application. The invention calculates the wet globe temperature and the black globe temperature from electronic weather data. The invention then alerts a user to protect people from heat stress after they have reached a preset wet bulb globe temperature for a preset time interval. For example, the invention might not alert the user to a dangerous wet bulb globe temperature when it reaches 85 °F but the invention may issue the alert if the wet bulb globe temperature remains at that level for 10 minutes.”
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 receiving the wet bulb globe temperature from a processor; and receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving 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).
The additional elements “a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit”; “to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp”, and “a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes from heat stress” in claim 1 are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location”, “a wireless communication module configured to communicate with the remove server”; “the remote server comprising an electronic data feed source configured to receive weather data for the physical location”; “to protect one or more athletes from heat stress”, and “a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit” in claim 11 are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device”; “the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature, and transmit the location of the device, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures”; “a customizable user interface configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature limit”, “to protect one or more users from heat stress”; and “display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature” in claim 17 are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 page 10 of the remark filed that “The invention is a significant improvement in weather computing and improves the manner in which users can protect themselves and others from heat stress. The invention allows for users to avoid heat conditions depending upon their location or depending on a location that the user may go to on a map. The invention employs tangible aspects such as location triangulation and alerts. The invention quickly calculates the wet bulb globe temperature so that it can be continuously monitored to protect athletes and others from dangerous outdoor heat.”
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 additional elements “a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit”; “to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp”, and “a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes from heat stress” in claim 1; “a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location”, “a wireless communication module configured to communicate with the remove server”; “the remote server comprising an electronic data feed source configured to receive weather data for the physical location”; “to protect one or more athletes from heat stress”, and “a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit” in claim 11; and “a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device”; “the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature, and transmit the location of the device, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures”; “a customizable user interface configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature limit”, “to protect one or more users from heat stress”; and “display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature” in claim 17 are well-understood and conventional. The alleged improvement in weather computing and improve the manner in which users can protect themselves and others from heat stress relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims 1, 11, and 17 do not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 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. Therefore, claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 are proper.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the weather data is used to determine a wet globe temperature and a black globe temperature, and the wet globe temperature and the black globe temperature being used to determine the ambient wet bulb globe temperature” in claim 9 should read as “wherein the weather data is used to determine a wet globe temperature and a black globe temperature, and the wet globe temperature and the black globe temperature are being used to determine the ambient wet bulb globe temperature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are those that are labeled as “a positioning module configured to”, “a processor configured to”, “a user interface module configured to”, “a memory module configured to”, “ a wireless communication module”; and
“an alert module configured to” in claims 1; “the user interface module is configured to” in claim 2; “the processor is further configured to” in claims 3 and 4, “the wireless communication module configured to” in claims 5 and 6; “the remote server is configured to”, “a portable unit”, “a positioning module configured to”, “the wireless communication module configured to”, “an electronic data feed source configured to”, “a processor configured to”, “a memory module configured to”, and “a portable unit” in claim 11; “the portable unit”, and “an alert module configured to” in claim 12;
“a location input configured to” in claim 14, “a GPS module configured to”, “a communication module configured to”, “the processor is configured to”, “a customizable user interface configured to”, and “an alert module configured to” in claim 17; and “a selection module” in claim 19.
The claims describe the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
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.
For example, [0004] discloses “… the computer implemented system is comprised of 1) a positioning module configured to determine a physical location of a user; 2) an electronic data feed source of weather data for the physical location or a secondary location; 3) a processor configured to determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location or the secondary location based on the weather data; 4) a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and to enable a user to select a wet bulb globe temperature limit; 5) a memory module configured to assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp; a wireless communication module; 6) and an alert module configured to alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a location. The secondary location can be selected from a map, menu or other displays and the secondary location can be a plurality of selected locations.”; [0005] discloses “The positioning module is preferably GPS or the global positioning system.”; and [0030] discloses “… herein is a wet bulb globe temperature device comprising: a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device; a communication module configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature”.
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. … the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.”
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 § 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 computer implemented system for correlating a wet bulb globe temperature to a user specified location at a user specified time comprising:
a positioning module configured to determine a physical location of a user; an electronic data feed source of weather data for the physical location or a secondary location;
a processor configured to determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location or the secondary location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature;
a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit;
a memory module configured to assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp;
a wireless communication module; and
an alert module configured to alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes from heat stress.”
As to claim 11, the claim recites “A system for determining a wet bulb globe temperature comprising:
a portable unit and a remote server, the portable unit comprising
a positioning module configured to determine a physical location of a user,
a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location, and
a wireless communication module configured to communicate with the remove server;
the remote server comprising an electronic data feed source configured to receive weather data for the physical location,
a processor configured to determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature,
wherein the processor is further configured to generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached to protect one or more users from heat stress,
a memory module configured to assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the wet bulb globe temperature and to save the wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp, and
a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit.”
As to claim 17, the claim recites “A wet bulb globe temperature device comprising
a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device;
a communication module configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature from a processor, the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature and
transmit the location of the device to the processor, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures;
wherein the processor is configured to determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black temperature, and the air temperature weather data and the air temperature, wherein the processor is further configured to generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached to protect one or more users from heat stress;
a customizable user interface configured to receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval,
display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature; and
an alert module configured to alert a user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature equals or is greater than the wet bulb globe temperature limit.”
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 fall 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 (apparatus for claims 1, 11, and 17).
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 “determine a physical location of a user; an electronic data feed source of weather data for the physical location or a secondary location”; and
“determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location or the secondary location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the ambient wet bulb globe temperature”; and
“alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
In claim 11, the steps of “determine a physical location of a user”, and
“determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached”, and
“assign a time stamp and a location stamp to the wet bulb globe temperature and to save the wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp” are mathematical concept, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
In claim 17, the step of “determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the wet globe temperature, the black temperature, and the air temperature weather data and the air temperature” is a mental processes, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “generate an alert signal when a wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval is reached”, and “alert a user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature equals or is greater than the wet bulb globe temperature limit” are mathematical concept, therefore, they are 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.
The claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: a positioning module; a processor; a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit; a memory module; to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp; a wireless communication module; and an alert module; and a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes from heat stress.
The additional elements “a user interface module configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit”; “to save the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp”, and “a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes from heat stress” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor and a generic memory are generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional elements “a positioning module”; “a user interface module”, “a memory module”; “a wireless communication module”; and “an alert module” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are 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.
Claim 11: a portable unit and a remote server; a positioning module; a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location, and a wireless communication module configured to communicate with the remove server; the remote server comprising an electronic data feed source configured to receive weather data for the physical location, a processor, to protect one or more athletes from heat stress, a memory module; and a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit.
The additional elements “a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location”, “a wireless communication module configured to communicate with the remove server”; “the remote server comprising an electronic data feed source configured to receive weather data for the physical location”; “to protect one or more athletes from heat stress”, and “a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic processor and a generic memory are generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional elements “a portable unit and a remote server”, “a positioning module”, “a wireless communication module”, and “a memory module” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are 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.
Claim 17: a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device; a communication module configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature from a processor, the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature, and transmit the location of the device to a processor, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures; a processor, to protect one or more users from heat stress; a customizable user interface configured to receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval, display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature; and an alert module.
The additional elements “receive a wet bulb globe temperature from a processor”, and “receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval” represent necessary data gathering and do not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device”; “the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature, and transmit the location of the device, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures”; “a customizable user interface configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature limit”, “to protect one or more users from heat stress”; and “display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature” 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 elements “a GPS module”, “a communication module “, and “an alert module” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are 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, receiving the wet bulb globe temperature from a processor; and
receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval are considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving 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, saving the ambient wet bulb globe temperature having the time stamp and the location stamp is disclosed by “Murphy US 20190289772”, [0039], [0062], [0074], [0076]; and “Ishii JP 2013210167A”, [0009], [0010], [0030].
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 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 patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Kutsuzawa JP 2013220236A”, “Matsuoka US 20180137735”, “Gaasch US 20160018835”, “Momayez US 20210264346”, “Yoshida JP 2019045987A”, “Kano US 20220365245”, and “Park US 20090198112”.
As to claims 1, 11, and 17, Kutsuzawa teaches a portable unit and a remote server, the portable unit (Kutsuzawa, [0049] discloses “In FIGS. 5 and 6, a smartphone 40 as a unit);
a positioning module configured to determine a physical location of a user; an electronic data feed source of weather data for the physical location (Kutsuzawa, [0009], [0011]) or a secondary location;
a user interface configured to display a wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location (Kutsuzawa, [0054], [0056], FIG. 5),
a wireless communication module (Kutsuzawa, [0055], FIG. 5);
an electronic data feed source configured to receive data for the physical location (, FIG. 5, [0053], FIG. 6),
a processor configured to determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location (Kutsuzawa, [0009], [0011], [0060]) or the secondary location;
a processor ([0060]) configured to determine the wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the air temperature (Kutsuzawa, Abstract, [0011]);
a user interface module (Kutsuzawa, FIG. 10, multi wireless communication device and touch panel device 42) configured to display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature and selecting a wet bulb globe temperature limit (Kutsuzawa, FIG. 4 shows LCD display panel 21; [0029]);
a memory module configured to assign a location stamp to the wet bulb globe temperature and to save the wet bulb globe temperature having the location stamp (Kutsuzawa, [0029], [0030], [0035], [0060]),
a communication module configured to receive a wet bulb globe temperature from a processor, the wet bulb globe temperature further comprising an ambient wet bulb globe temperature and a forecasted wet bulb globe temperature (Kutsuzawa, Abstract, [0008], [0009], [0060], FIGs. 5 and 6), and transmit the location of the device to the processor, a user selected location, and the wet bulb globe temperatures (Kutsuzawa, [0022], [0023], [0053]);
a customizable user interface configured to receive the wet bulb globe temperature limit for the preset time interval (Kutsuzawa, [0022], [0023], [0029], [0053]),
display the ambient wet bulb globe temperature, display the forecasted wet bulb globe temperature (Kutsuzawa, Abstract [0002], [0008], [0054], [0056], FIG. 5); and
a wireless communication component configured to communicate with the portable unit (Kutsuzawa, FIGs. 5 and 6; [0050]),
a wireless communication module (Kutsuzawa, FIGs. 5 and 6 show multi wireless communication device 41); and
an alert module configured to alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval for location, and athlete (Kutsuzawa, [0002], [0029], [0030], [0031]).
Matsuoka teaches a GPS module configured to establish a location of the device (Matsuoka, [0061], [0066], [0090], [0095], FIG. 16);
determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location based on the weather data and the air temperature (Matsuoka, [0100], [0105], [0260]); and
assign a time stamp to the wet bulb globe temperature and to save the wet bulb globe temperature having the location stamp (Matsuoka, [0100], [0105], [0260]).
Yoshida teaches an alert module configured to alert the user when the ambient wet bulb globe temperature reaches or meets or exceeds the wet bulb globe temperature limit for a preset time interval for a location -specified by the user to protect one or more athletes or worker from heat stress (Yoshida, Abstract, [0006], [0030], [0043], [0044], [0046], [0051], [0059]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determine an ambient wet bulb globe temperature for the physical location or the secondary location based on the wet globe temperature, the black globe temperature, and the air temperature” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 11, and 17.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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.
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- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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 2857