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
This action is in response to the election filed 5/27/2026. Applicant has elected Invention I (claims 2-4) without traverse. Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 are generic. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 are pending for examination.
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.
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, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite the abstract idea of “determining and providing damage/insurance coverage based on measured extent of a flood”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices” involving insurance and mitigating risk (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claims 1 and 19 recite “…. a geographic area to be covered” “…at least comprising definable area parameters … geographic location and/or geographic extent of said geographic area”, “measuring…. an occurrence of a flood event by measuring floodings”” wherein flood measuring parameters of the …are transmitted to the…and wherein, based on the transmitted flood measuring parameters, … measured as flooded are contributing to the area measured as affected while … measured as not flooded are contributing to the area measured as not affected”, “measuring a flood threshold measurand”, “wherein the flood threshold measurand is selected from a percentage of the geographic area given by the area measured as affected to the total geographic area”, “triggering the adaptive damage-cover structure to cover physical damages or losses associated with the measured occurrence of the flood event, the occurrence measurably impacting physical objects situated in the affected area and/or … measured as affected” and “wherein the adaptive damage-cover structure is adapted by the damage-cover system based on the flood threshold measurand providing the dynamic parametric flood impact cover”. Claims 2-5, 9-10 and 12-13 are dependent on claims 1 and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 19. Therefore, claims 2-5, 9-10 and 12-13 recite the same abstract idea of “determining and providing damage/insurance coverage based on measured extent of a flood”. The limitations recited in the depending claims (For example, the triggering, providing, transmitting, covering, detecting steps and the specific type of area covered) are further details of the abstract idea and not significantly more. The concept described in claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 is an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements such as “central measuring engine”, “capturing by a predefined data structure”, “splitting…the geographic area to be covered by a spatial grid with equidistant or adjusted grid cells of definable or adjustably determined size”, “by flood detection devices and/or flood sensors”, “within the grid cells of the spatial grid”, “flood detection devices and/or flood sensors”, “central measuring engine”, “grid cells”, “transmitting electronic steering signals (claim 4)”, “automatically (claim 4)”, “electronic …module (claim 5)” and “optical measuring devices (claim 12) represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The recited “loop-back signaling” recited in claim 10 merely employs electronic communication to transmit information between components implementing the claimed data-cover arrangement. The limitation does not recite a particular improvement to the electronic signaling, communication technology or computer functionality, by instead uses electronic signaling as a tool for implementing the insurance/risk-mitigation activity. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2015/0073716 A1) in view of NIERING et al. (US 2017/0083981 A1).
As pe Claims 1, 19
Johnson (‘716) discloses
capturing, by a predefined data structure of a central measuring engine, a geographic area to be covered, the data structure at least comprising definable area parameters capturing geographic location and/or geographic extent of said geographic area, see at least paragraph 0047 (capture image data for a region of interest e.g. a field, a portion of a field, a region including a field and its surrounding area), paragraph 0080 (geographic data can include data associated with an area of land), paragraph 0082 (received information related to target areas for the crop loss determination system; target areas), paragraph 0073 (geographic data; locations), paragraph 0025 (level of coverage), paragraph 0091 (CLDG *crop loss determination generator* receive configuration parameters that define the boundaries e.g. physical boundaries such as latitude and longitude data of the region of interest)
predefined data structure comprising grid parameters for splitting the geographic area to be covered by the spatial grid with equidistant or variable grid cells of definable or automatically adaptable size by means of a dynamic grid splitter *claim 19*, see at least paragraph 0083 (partition the region of interest into a plurality of cells e.g. a grid; each cell can represent portion of the region of interest; partitioning the region of interest into smaller cell sizes; CLDG can partition the region of interest to determine the plurality of cells based on one or more default parameters, such as default parameters stored within configuration data) and paragraph 0091 (CLDG *crop loss determination generator* receive configuration parameters that define the boundaries e.g. physical boundaries such as latitude and longitude data of the region of interest), paragraph 0092 (CLDG can determine data configuration parameters corresponding of the region of interest; CLDG can determine the number, size and/or location boundaries by which to partition the region of interest to determine a plurality of cells; such cell boundary information can be determined by CLDG e.g. based on default parameters and/or received by CLDG), paragraph 0170 (table can be associated with a portion of a region of interest e.g. cell)
splitting, by the central measuring engine, the geographic area to be covered by a spatial grid with equidistant or adjusted grid cells of definable or adjustably determined size, see at least paragraph 0083 (partition the region of interest into a plurality of cells e.g. a grid; each cell can represent portion of the region of interest; partitioning the region of interest into smaller cell sizes) and paragraph 0091 (CLDG *crop loss determination generator* receive configuration parameters that define the boundaries e.g. physical boundaries such as latitude and longitude data of the region of interest), paragraph 0092 (CLDG can determine data configuration parameters corresponding of the region of interest; CLDG can determine the number, size and/or location boundaries by which to partition the region of interest to determine a plurality of cells; such cell boundary information can be determined by CLDG e.g. based on default parameters and/or received by CLDG)
measuring, by flood detection devices and/or sensors, an occurrence of a flood event by measuring within the grid cells of the spatial grid wherein, based on the transmitted parameters, and wherein based on the transmitted flood measuring parameters, grid cells measured as flooded are contributing to the area measured as affected while grid cells measured as not flooded are contributing to the area measured as not affected wherein flood measuring parameters are transmitted to the central measuring engine, see at least paragraph 0048 (receive data from data feed…weather data…floods), paragraph 0047 (sensors e.g. rain gauge; capture image data for a region of interest), paragraph 0083 (partition the region of interest into a plurality of cells e.g. a grid; each cell can represent portion of the region of interest; partitioning the region of interest into smaller cell sizes), paragraph 0088 (crop loss criteria; number of cells and /or acres determined to have triggered the alert), paragraph 0025 (the scope of crop loss can refer the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0112 (CLDG determines the seventy-five percent damage of the region of in interest has been confirmed on fifty acres of the region of interested…twenty acres confirmed to not have been damaged), paragraph 0027 (crop is…damaged due to …flooding)
measuring a flood threshold measurand wherein the flood threshold measurand is selected from the percentage of the geographic area given by the area measured as affected to the total geographic area, the occurrence measurably impacting physical objects situated in the affected area and/or grid cells measured as affected, see at least paragraph 0025 (percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of cross loss within a particular number or acres; the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected, such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0025 (flooding; the extent of crop loss can refer to the severity of the damage to the crop, such as the percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of crop loss within a particular number of acres, the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0035 (assess the extent and scope of the loss and establish the appropriate indemnity)
Johnson (‘716) discloses triggering the adaptive damage-cover structure to cover physical damages or losses associated with the measured occurrence of the flood event wherein the adaptive damage-cover structure is adapted by the damage-cover system based on the flood threshold measurand and dynamic parametric flood impact cover, see at least paragraph 0077 (parameters can include a threshold value, a range of values or other parameters….determine whether a crop loss status of growing crops within a region of interest reflects nonconformance with acceptable crop loss criteria), paragraph 0088 (a number of cells and/or acres determined to have triggered the alert, a scope of the crop loss, a severity of the crop loss), paragraph 0025 (flooding; the extent of crop loss can refer to the severity of the damage to the crop, such as the percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of crop loss within a particular number of acres, the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0035 (assess the extent and scope of the loss and establish the appropriate indemnity), but fails to explicitly disclose providing the dynamic cover. NIERING teaches providing dynamic cover, see at least paragraph 0017 (parametric payment is allocated with triggering and wherein the total allocated payment is transferable upon a triggering of the occurrence), paragraph 0030 (electronic money transfer), paragraph 0029 (payment amount can be determined dynamically) and paragraph 0007 (providing dynamic…risk protection). Both Johnson and NIERING are directed to protect against risk of losses and events. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s invention to include providing dynamic cover. One would have been motivated for the benefit of speeding up payment process.
As per Claim 2
Johnson (‘716) discloses wherein the adaptive damage-cover structure is only triggered if the flood threshold measurand is measured to exceed a predefined flood threshold value, see at least paragraph 0080 (degree of crop loss that exceeds the pre-established parameters), paragraph 0025 (flooding; the extent of crop loss can refer to the severity of the damage to the crop, such as the percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of crop loss within a particular number of acres, the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0035 (assess the extent and scope of the loss and establish the appropriate indemnity)
As per Claim 3
Johnson (‘716) discloses wherein the adaptive damage-cover structure is triggered to provide a damage cover directly dependent on the measured flood threshold measurand, see at least paragraph 0080 (degree of crop loss that exceeds the pre-established parameters), paragraph 0025 (flooding; the extent of crop loss can refer to the severity of the damage to the crop, such as the percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of crop loss within a particular number of acres, the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0035 (assess the extent and scope of the loss and establish the appropriate indemnity)
As per Claim 4
Johnson (‘716) discloses wherein the adaptive damage-cover structure is adapted by the damage-cover system based on the flood threshold measurand, see at least paragraph 0080 (degree of crop loss that exceeds the pre-established parameters), paragraph 0025 (flooding; the extent of crop loss can refer to the severity of the damage to the crop, such as the percentage of an amount of crop that is lost within a region of interest e.g. a percentage of crop loss within a particular number of acres, the scope of crop loss can refer to the area of crop affected such as a quantity of acres affected), paragraph 0035 (assess the extent and scope of the loss and establish the appropriate indemnity), but fails to explicitly disclose the measurand is transmitted by the electronic steering signals wherein the structure is triggered by transmitting electronic steering signals from to the automatedly steered electronic first and/or second resource-pooling system. NIERING teaches transmitting measurand by electronic steering signals wherein the structure is triggered by transmitting electronic steering signals from to the automatedly steered electronic first and/or second resource-pooling system, see at least paragraph 0029 (event-triggered switching device… transmitting appropriate steering signals to the first and second resource pooling systems), paragraph 0007 (automated switching mechanism) and paragraph 0009 (measured actual loss…triggers…first and second pooling system). Both Johnson and NIERING are directed to protect against risk of losses and events. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s invention to include transmitting measurand by electronic steering signals wherein the structure is triggered by transmitting electronic steering signals from to the automatedly steered electronic first and/or second resource-pooling system. One would have been motivated for the benefit of reducing risk.
As per Claim 5
Johnson (‘716) discloses generating a coverage based on the adaptive damage-cover structure and to cover the physical damages or loss associated with the measured occurrence, see at least paragraph 0002 (scope of the crop loss can be estimated to determine the indemnity payment), but fails to explicitly disclose transferring, by an electronic payment transfer module, based on the generated parametric coverage monetary pay- out parameter values by electronic payment transfer. NIERING teaches transferring, by an electronic payment transfer module, based on the generated parametric coverage monetary pay- out parameter values by electronic payment transfer, see at least paragraph 0017 (parametric payment is allocated with triggering and wherein the total allocated payment is transferable upon a triggering of the occurrence), paragraph 0030 (electronic money transfer), paragraph 0020 (payment parameters; measured loss). Both Johnson and NIERING are directed to protect against risk of losses and events. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s invention to include transferring, by an electronic payment transfer module, based on the generated parametric coverage monetary pay- out parameter values by electronic payment transfer. One would have been motivated for the benefit of speeding up payment process.
As per Claim 9
Johnson (‘716) discloses wherein the geographic area comprising surveyed landscape representative of area covered by dry land and wetland, see at least paragraph 0073 (examples of geographic data can include, but are not limited to, geographic data relating to roadways, surface and/or underground water and landmark locations)
As per Claim 12
Johnson (‘716) discloses wherein the affected area is measured using at least partially air-based and/or space-based optical measuring devices, see at least paragraph 0047 (aircraft, satellite; capture image data for region of interest), paragraph 0034 (image data including… light spectrum data) and paragraph 0047
As per Claim 13
Johnson (‘716) discloses specific selection of a flood impact cover, see at least paragraph 0025 (factors that negatively impact the quality of crop can be safeguarded against through the various forms of crop insurance; the level of coverage is determined based upon…level of coverage desired) and paragraph 0027 (crop is…damaged due to …flooding), but fails to explicitly disclose generating a premium value based on a specific selection of parametric cover. NIERING teaches generating a premium value based on a specific selection of parametric cover, see at least paragraph 0003 (premiums that are to be paid for the transfer of risk; risk of loss), paragraph 0041 (premiums, calculable and/or measurable and/or parametrizable losses; determine a premium). Both Johnson and NIERING are directed to protect against risk of losses and events. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s invention to include generating a premium value based on a specific selection of parametric cover. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing payments to be determined for transfer of risk.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2015/0073716 A1) in view of NIERING et al. (US 2017/0083981 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
As per Claim 10
Johnson (‘716) wherein the occurrence of the flood event is detected, see at least paragraph 0048 (data received …include weather data…floods), paragraph 0080 (event data; occurrence of storms, rain…), but fails to explicitly disclose detected using loopback signaling. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known in the art to detect occurrence using loopback signaling (For example, a weather sensor may detect the occurrence of rain based on a change in a returned loopback signal). Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s invention to include detected using loopback signaling. One would have been motivated for the benefit of providing feedback confirming occurrence of the detected event, thereby improving reliability of event detection.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant art cited but not applied: Boss et al. (US 2010/0085198 A1), directed to detecting and providing confirmation of flooding event occurrence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights