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 .
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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “module” coupled with functional language “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “module” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”, "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the data acquisition module, the correlation coefficient calculation module, the categorization module, the significance determination module, the spatial weight calculation module, the spatial consistent probability analysis module does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a data acquisition module, a correlation coefficient calculation module, a categorization module, a significance determination module, a spatial weight calculation module, a spatial consistent probability analysis module,” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for analyzing a spatial probability based on a correspondence relationship between precipitation forecast and teleconnection, comprising following steps: acquiring a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; respectively calculating a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid according to the acquired sample sequences, and categorizing each grid according to significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index- observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient; determining a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; calculating a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and calculating a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of respectively calculating a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid according to the acquired sample sequences, and categorizing each grid according to significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index- observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating coefficients and categorizing based on the calculated coefficients can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of determining a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining a correspondence relationship according to a result can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a spatial weight can performed mentally or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of calculating a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, calculating a spatial consistent probability can performed mentally or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing a utility meter management system are performed: acquiring a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… extracting forecast precipitation data and observation precipitation data of the grid in a target region according to the acquire sample sequence; calculating the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o,f) grid by grid, wherein the expression of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is as follows:r(o, f)= … where Ok represents the observation precipitation data in a kt year; fk represents the forecast precipitation data in the kt year; 'f respectively represent a mean value of historical observation precipitation data and a mean value of historical forecast precipitation data; and calculating the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient r(o, q) grid by grid, wherein expression of the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient is as follows ….”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the step of categorizing each grid according to significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient comprises: determining the significance of each grid in the target region and categorizing each grid , according to a predetermined significance level a and the forecast-observationcorrelation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid;for the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o,f):if the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o, f) is greater than ri-a/2, determining that the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive; if the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o, f) is less than or equal to ri-a/2, and greater than ra/2, determining that the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is non-significant; and if the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o, f) is less than ra/2, determining that the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly negative; and for the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient… if the teleconnection correlation coefficient r(o, q) is greater than ri-a/2, determining that the teleconnection correlation coefficient is significantly positive; if the teleconnection correlation coefficient r(o, q) is less than or equal to ri-a/2, and greater than ra/2, determining that the teleconnection correlation coefficient is non- significant; and if the teleconnection correlation coefficient r(o, q) is less than ra/2, determining that the teleconnection correlation coefficient is significantly negative; and wherein ri-b/2 is a quantile of 100x(1-a/2) of the correlation coefficient r, and ra/2 is a quantile of 100x(a/2) of the correlation coefficient r.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… t andthe teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result comprises:in a case where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient r(o, f) is significantly positive, determining, grid by grid, that the forecast-observation correlation of the grid is significantly positive and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the grid is significantly positive, that the forecast-observation correlation of the grid is significantly positive and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the grid is non-significant, or that the forecast-observation correlation of the grid is significantly positive and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the grid is significantly negative, and constructing a correspondence relationship vector through the Boolean number, wherein expressions of the correspondence relationship vector is as follows: … [XIINx where N is a total quantity of the grids in the target region; b(PAC&PENSO)isa Boolean number vector where the forecast-observation correlation is significantly positive PAC and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation is significantly positive PENSO, and when a grid i satisfies PAc&PENSO, a value of x, is 1, and otherwise the value of x, is 0; whereb(PAC&nsENsO) represents a Boolean number vector where the forecast- observation correlation is significantly positive PAc and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation is non-significant nSENSO, and when the grid i satisfies PAc&nsENSO, the value of x, is 1, and otherwise the value of x, is 0; and where … represents a Boolean number vector where the forecast- observation correlation is significantly positive PAc and the climate index-observationprecipitation teleconnection correlation is significantly negative NENSO, and when the grid i satisfies PAc&NENSO, the value of x, is 1, and otherwise the value of x, is 0. , which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the step of calculating a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix comprises: labeling coordinates of the grid in the target region by taking a top left corner of the target region as an origin; calculating the spatial weights of any two grid coordinates through a quadratic decay function of a distance, wherein the expression of the spatial weights is as follows: … where d is an Euclidean distance between a grid point (u, v,) and a grid point (uy, u1), and d is a bandwidth value of the weight coefficient; and constructing the spatial weight matrix according to the spatial weights of any two grid coordinates, wherein the expression of … where N is a total quantity of the grids.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein further comprising: performing standardized processing on the spatial weight matrix A, and performing standardized … processing on each spatial weight, wherein the expression of the spatial weight matrix A is as follows:A= NxN,”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the step of calculating a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive according to the spatial weight matrix A and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient comprises: calculating the Boolean number vector where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient of each grid is significantly positive according to the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region; and then multiplying the Boolean number vector with the spatial weight corresponding to the grid to calculate the spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient of the corresponding grid is significantly positive, wherein the expression of the spatial consistent probability is as follows: …”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the Boolean number vector b(Pac) where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient of each grid is significantly positive comprises the Boolean number vector b(PAC&PENSO) where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient of the corresponding grid is significantly positive and climate index- observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the corresponding grid is significantly positive, the Boolean number vector b(PAC&nENSO) where the forecast- observation correlation coefficient of the corresponding grid is significantly positive and climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the corresponding grid is non-significant, and the Boolean number vector b(PAC&NENSO) where the forecast- observation correlation coefficient of the corresponding grid is significantly positive and climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation of the corresponding grid is significantly negative.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the method further comprises the following step: calculating the spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is non-significant and the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly negative according to the spatial weight matrix A and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 3, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 depends on claim 6, depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly 16positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 17 depends on claim 8, which depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result; a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 18 is 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. Claim 18 depends on claim 8, which depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the system comprises: a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a sample sequence of a precipitation forecast to be analyzed and a sample sequence of corresponding observation precipitation and climate indices; a correlation coefficient calculation module, configured to respectively calculate a forecast-observation correlation coefficient and a climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient of each grid in the target region, according to the acquire sample sequences; a categorization module, configured to analyze significance of the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the climate index-observation precipitation teleconnection correlation coefficient and to categorize each grid according to an analysis result;a significance determination module, configured to determine a correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient according to a grid categorization result; a spatial weight calculation module, configured to calculate a spatial weight according to spatial coordinates of the grid, so as to acquire a spatial weight matrix; and a spatial consistent probability analysis module, configured to calculate a spatial consistent probability where the forecast-observation correlation coefficient is significantly positive and spatial consistent probability of respective correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and different teleconnection correlation coefficients according to the spatial weight matrix and the correspondence relationship between the forecast-observation correlation coefficient and the teleconnection correlation coefficient.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20220027744 A1; KRISHNAN; Mythili et al. is an embodiment for resource data modeling, forecasting and simulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights