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 w