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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, the applicant in the remarks disclose that the claim language provides multiple practical applications and technological improvements via [0070-0075] of the specification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.” The claim limitations, as disclosed do integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As written, the claim limitations collect data, manipulate said data and conclude/output information based on the manipulation of said data (detection of meteorological event). This does not convey practical applicability. It does not convey improvement of technology or technical field. It is merely conveyed as a method to conclude manipulated data. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the 101 rejection. To possibly overcome the 101 rejection, examiner suggest the review and inclusion of verbiage from [0070-0073] clearly disclosing particular improvements.
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 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory
categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature)
or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a
judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A meteorological event detection method executed by a processor, the method comprising:
(a) providing a distribution of a plurality of data points based on meteorological data, each
data point having at least (i) a geographical position, and (ii) a property value that relates to a
meteorological condition, and each data point corresponding to a particle that has a first position
corresponding to the geographical position and is moveable within the distribution;
(b) for each particle, assigning a velocity vector based on the property values of surrounding
data points;
(c) for each particle, assigning an updated position to the particle based on the first position
and the velocity vector;
(d) then for each particle, determining whether the particle satisfies an escape condition by
determining whether movement of the particle is bounded within a space that satisfies the escape
condition, wherein the escape condition is set based on a predetermined threshold spatial size within
the distribution;
(e) determining a plurality of final property values, wherein each final property value relates to
the meteorological condition and is determined based on the updated position of at least one particle
that is determined to satisfy the escape condition; and
(f) detecting a meteorological event based on the plurality of the final property values, wherein
the method further comprises for each particle that is determined not to satisfy the escape condition, iteratively repeating steps (b), (c) and (d) until the escape condition is satisfied or until a predetermined number of such iterations has been performed.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human
mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses
(a) providing a distribution of a plurality of data points based on meteorological data, each data point
having at least (i) a geographical position, and (ii) a property value that relates to a meteorological
condition, and each data point corresponding to a particle that has a first position corresponding to the
geographical position and is moveable within the distribution; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; (b) for each particle, assigning a velocity vector based on the property values of surrounding data points; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; (c) for each particle, assigning an updated position to the particle based on the first position and the velocity vector; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; (d) then for each particle, determining whether the particle satisfies an escape condition by determining whether movement of the particle is bounded within a space that satisfies the escape condition, wherein the escape condition is set based on a predetermined threshold spatial size within the distribution; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or human observation; (e) determining a plurality of final property values, wherein each final property value relates to the meteorological condition and is determined based on the updated position of at least one particle that is determined to satisfy the escape condition; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; (f) detecting a meteorological event based on the plurality of the final property values; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and or human observation; wherein the method further comprises for each particle that is determined not to satisfy the escape condition, iteratively repeating steps (b), (c) and (d) until the escape condition is satisfied or until a predetermined number of such iterations has been performed; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or human observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical
application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, the claim does not recite any elements in addition to
the judicial exception.
It is therefore concluded under prong 2 of step 2A that the recited judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. There are not additional elements discussed above in
connection with prong 2 of step 2a.
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-11 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and
therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 12-16 and 18-22 are directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory
categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 12 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
An information processing apparatus for meteorological event detection comprising:
a memory storing data; and
a processor programmed to:
(a) provide a distribution of a plurality of data points based on meteorological data, each data
point having at least (i) a geographical position, and (ii) a property value that relates to a
meteorological condition, and each data point corresponding to a particle that has a first position
corresponding to the geographical position and is moveable within the distribution;
(b) for each particle, assign a velocity vector based on the property values of surrounding data
points;
(c) for each particle, assign an updated position to the particle based on the first position and
the velocity vector;
(d) then for each particle, determine whether the particle satisfies an escape condition by
determining whether movement of the particle is bounded within a space that satisfies the escape
condition, wherein the escape condition is set based on a predetermined threshold spatial size within
the distribution;
(e) determine a plurality of final property values, wherein each final property value relates to
the meteorological condition and is determined based on the updated position of at least one particle
that is determined to satisfy the escape condition; and
(f) detect a meteorological event based on the plurality of the final property values,
wherein the processor is further programmed to for each particle that is determined not to satisfy
the escape condition, iteratively repeat (b), (c) and (d) until the escape condition is satisfied or until a
predetermined number of such iterations has been performed.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human
mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 12 discloses (a) provide a distribution of a plurality of data points based on meteorological data, each data point having at least (i) a geographical position, and (ii) a property value that relates to a meteorological condition, and each data point corresponding to a particle that has a first position corresponding to the geographical position and is moveable within the distribution; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; (b) for each particle, assign a velocity vector based on the property values of surrounding data points; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; (c) for each particle, assign an updated position to the particle based on the first position and the velocity vector; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper, (d) then for each particle, determine whether the particle satisfies an escape condition by determining whether movement of the particle is bounded within a space that satisfies the escape condition, wherein the escape condition is set based on a predetermined threshold spatial size within the distribution; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or human observation; (e) determine a plurality of final property values, wherein each final property value relates to the meteorological condition and is determined based on the updated position of at least one particle that is determined to satisfy the escape condition; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; (f) detect a meteorological event based on the plurality of the final property values; construed by the examiner as mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or human observation; for each particle that is determined not to satisfy the escape condition, iteratively repeat (b), (c) and (d) until the escape condition is satisfied or until a predetermined number of such iterations has been performed; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or human observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 12 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical
application.
Analyzing claim 12 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above,
claim 12 further recites:
a memory storing data; and
a processor programmed to:
the processor is further programmed to
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 12 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data.
However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection
with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic
processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other
machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or
simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 12 does not recite additional elements that
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 13-16 and 18-22 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 12
and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2016/0334547 A1, MacNeille et al. relates to a system includes a processor configured to receive recorded weather-related observation data from a plurality of vehicles in a building locality.
WO2011/088891A1, Guatteri et al. relates to a forecast system and method for automated location dependent natural disaster impact forecast, whereas natural disaster events are measured by located gauging stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights