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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-12, filed January 2, 2026, with respect to the claim objections and rejection(s) of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 8, regarding the claim objections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Applicant notes that these recitations refer to the singular “each escape region>’ As such, it would not be proper to change the recitation of “the final property value” to the plural “the final property values” in these claims. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.”
In response the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the claim objections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 8, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claims 2-5, 13-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). In response, the claims are amended to address each issue, thus mooting the rejection.”
In response the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 9, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“First, Applicant submits that the claimed features cannot be practically performed in the human mind.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-10, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“The iterative gradient descent loop of the claims is similar to the example provided in MPEP 2106(III)(A) of limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind: “a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of sattelites, SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d at 1616-17.” Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong One, the independent claims as amended do not recite an abstract idea.”
In response the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. First, the corresponding MPEP cite is MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A. which states: “Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.” The example provided by the applicant is directed towards a “a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites.” The human mind, in this instance, is not equipped to perform the example function because the human mind is not equipped with wireless transceivers that communicate with satellites and not because of the intensity of calculation; wherein the examiner notes there are no explicit recitations of any calculations in independent claims 1 and 12; e.g., wherein the steps include providing;… determining;… determining;… detecting.
However, the current instant claims; e.g., 1 and 12, of the application are more closely aligned with the example of claims that do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind; e.g., “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” e.g.; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A. Examiner notes that there are no explicit limitations recited of an actual calculation performed in any of the instant claims, but rather a highly generalized set of steps for performing the analysis of data to output a result.
Applicant argues on pgs. 10-11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Specifically, as described in paras. [0070]-[0075] of the publication, the claimed iterative gradient descent loop provides the following technological improvements:
(i) "improve the processing accuracy in detecting jet streams. Specifically, conventional methods did not use gradient descent principles to iteratively determine higher wind velocity positions. Instead, conventional methods merely connected the extrema found in the acquired data set" para. [0070]);
(ii) "an improvement over conventional processors that were not able to apply gradient descent principles to iteratively arrive at more accurate detections of jet stream particles" para. [0071]);
(iii) "avoids the local disruption problem, where the jet stream may slow down locally but continue a few tens or hundreds of kilometers away ... whereas conventional automated methods often misinterpret the locally slowed position as the end of the local stream" para. [0072]);
(iv) "improvements in accuracy lead to an additional improvement to the display of the jet streams. Specifically, because the jet streams are more accurately identified via gradient descent, the display of the jet streams on, for example, a map is improved" para. [0073]);
(v) "the disclosed method enables the processor to detect the meteorological event at a higher processing speed than in conventional methods because the disclosed method allows for all particles to be simultaneously processed in each iteration" para.[0074]); and
(vi) "because the disclosed method avoids the use of complex "trig" functions which conventional methods relied upon, improved processing speeds can be achieved for the processor by the disclosed method" para. [0075]).
Accordingly, the claims are patent-eligible under Prong Two as well.”
In response the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. 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 an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of 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 courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
In evaluating the first criteria of an improvement, the applicant has provided support in paras. [0070]-[0075] of applicant’s disclosure. Para. [0070] discloses an iterative process of gradient descent in order to improve processing accuracy, and claims conventional methods do not utilize gradient descent. Gradient descent is a known mathematical algorithm used to minimize a function by moving in the direction of steepest descent. Modern weather mapping does in fact utilize this in applications involving machine learning, variational assimilation, and geospatial grids, and is not construed as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to a technological field. Para. [0071] discloses failures to utilize wind directions (u, v) as a bias when adjusting the position of data points. In response, modern weather prediction models are known to utilize both u and v wind components as fundamental state variables. By changing u and v, jet core location, jet streak intensity, curvature and meandering, divergence/convergence patterns, and downstream weather impacts are also necessarily changed. This is plainly known in global and region NWP models such as ECMWF, NOAA GFS, UK Met Office Unified Model, and the WRF, and as such is not construed as an improvement. Para. [0072] discloses the benefits of manual forecasting over conventional automated methods which “often misinterpret the locally slowed positions as the end of the local stream.” See argument above to calculations utilizing gradient descent. Para. [0073] discloses the improvement to a map based on the accurately identified jet streams via gradient descent. This paragraph is construed as a bare assertion, and is therefore not regarded as an improvement. Para. [0074] discloses the use of tools such as OpenMP, OpenCL or other parallel computing solution. Almost all modern weather prediction systems relay on massive parallel computing which are well known in the art; e.g., MPI (distributed memory), OpenMP (shared memory), Hybrid MPI + OpenMP, and through GPU acceleration (Open MP offload, CUDA in some schemes). These weather models include WRF, GFS, ECMWF IFS, UK Met Office Unified Model, ICON, etc., and therefore para. [0074] is not construed as an improvement. Para. [0075] discloses the avoidance of the use of “trig” functions; e.g., square root, pow(), logarithm, sin, cos, tan, etc. However, not using certain broadly claimed mathematical algorithms over other mathematical algorithms is not construed as an improvement, wherein this paragraph is also construed as a bare assertion.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Examiner notes that the first criteria has not been construed as being met. However, the second criteria will be analyzed. Applicant has cited to paras. [0070]-[0075] disclosing “gradient descent,” “parallel computing solutions,” and calculations of u, v jet streams, wherein none of these limitations appear in instant claims 1 or 12. Therefore the second criteria has not been met.
Applicant argues on pg. 11, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Finally, under Step 2B of the analysis, the claims are patent-eligible because there is no evidence on the record that the claimed step of "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" is well known, routine or conventional.”
In response the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action was not based on a rejection of well understood, routine, or conventional, and therefore this argument is rendered moot.
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 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
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2021/0311089 A1 to Nabi relates to a system and method for wind flow turbulence measurement by LIDAR in a complex terrain.
US 10,648,805 B2 to Bai et al. relates to 3-D air pollution transmission path identification.
US 2012/0084005 A1 to Fujisaki relates to weather variation forecast information providing system and weather variation forecast information providing method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857