DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
figures 2 and 3 do not contain values for the scale of each graph
A set of replacement drawings that cancel old figures 4-7 has not been provided
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. The specification is objected to because the Abstract exceeds 150 words.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 2 is dependent on claim 1. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with introduced elements that do not use “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation in claim 1 as claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 through its dependency tree. Applicant is advised to look over the entire claim as most elements are introduced in claim 1 and will need “the” or “said” to properly refer to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
data acquisition module in claims 9 and 11-17
normal transformation module in claims 9-17
normal distribution module in claims 9 and 11-17
optimization module in claims 9 and 11-17
analysis module in claims 9 and 11-17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: The specification does not contain any recitation of hardware for the above mentioned modules, so they will be interpreted as performed by the processor and memory of a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-8 and 13-17 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.
The following variables are not defined in the claim rendering the metes and bounds of the claims unclear:
p() in claims 4 and 5
Z’ in claim 5
xi in claim 5
z0 in claim 5
U() in claim 8
Claims 9-17 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 limitations “data acquisition module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “normal transformation module” in claims 9-17, “normal distribution module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “optimization module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “analysis module” in claims 9 and 11-17, invoke 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 specification is devoid of the structure that can perform the claimed functions of the modules. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. 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.
Regarding claims 9-17, the metes and bounds of the claim are rendered unclear due to the preamble reciting “a system” that does not recite any structural recitations. A first interpretation of the claim includes, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, that the claimed “system” is intended to invoke 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites a generic placeholder (i.e. system) that is modified by functional language (i.e. modules configured to) and is not modified by sufficient structure for achieving the specified functions. However, upon viewing the specification, there is no corresponding structure for the device. A second interpretation of the claim includes, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, that the claimed “system” is an apparatus without any structural limitations. Under this interpretation, the claim describes a computer program with no structural recitations to define the claimed device. Upon viewing the specification, the supporting disclosure does not discuss the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Due to there being no corresponding disclosure of the structure of the device in the specification, the limitation is deemed indefinite. Therefore, the claimed invention must be interpreted under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “system.” See MPEP 2181(II)(B). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are rendered unclear because it is unclear whether the claim is intended to invoke 35 USC 112(F), or if the claim is directed to an apparatus that does not recite any structural limitations to define the system.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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 9-17 is 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 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 the claimed functions of “data acquisition module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “normal transformation module” in claims 9-17, “normal distribution module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “optimization module” in claims 9 and 11-17, “analysis module” in claims 9 and 11-17. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Regarding claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 9-17 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 9 and 11-17 recite the abstract idea of analyzing precipitation data to normalize it, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The following claims are recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 11-17. The limitation of "S 1: acquiring precipitation data to be analyzed;” covers mental processes including observing a dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “S2: constructing a normal transformation model to perform a normal transformation on the precipitation data, so as to obtain a normal variable Z, wherein the normal transformation model comprises corresponding normal transformation parameters;” covers a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations using equations (as seen in claim 2), or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “S3: letting the normal variable Z to obey a normal distribution to construct a joint probability density function of the normal variable Z;” covers a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations to meet a threshold using a set of equations (as seen in claims 3 and 4), or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset and modifying it until a threshold is met. Additionally, the limitation of “S4: constructing a likelihood function for a parameter optimization based on the normal transformation model and the joint probability density function, wherein parameters to be optimized comprise normal distribution parameters and the normal transformation parameters;” covers a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations using a set of equations (as seen in claim 5), or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “S5: deducing an analytic gradient vector of the likelihood function to optimize the likelihood function till a predetermined termination condition is satisfied, so as to obtain an optimum parameter enabling a maximum value of the likelihood function; and” covers a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations using a set of equations (as seen in claim 6), or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “S6: updating the normal transformation model based on the optimum parameter, and performing the normal transformation and a modeling analysis on the precipitation data to obtain a precipitation normalization analysis result.” covers a mathematical concept in the form of a series of calculations, or alternatively mental processes including evaluating a dataset to obtain a result. In claims 9 and 11-17, the limitation of “so as to output a precipitation normalization analysis result” covers mental processes including writing down a result with pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Similarly recited in claims 9-17, the additional elements of “data acquisition module”, “normal transformation module”, “normal distribution module”, “optimization module” and “analysis module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 9 and 11-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly recited in claims 9-17, the additional elements of “data acquisition module”, “normal transformation module”, “normal distribution module”, “optimization module” and “analysis module” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 10 are directed to further defining the normal transformation model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 4 are directed to further defining the numerical steps and equations used in S3, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the likelihood function of S4, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the analyzing of S5, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the termination condition, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the setting of the initiating point, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Huberman, Tabak, Leeds and Unger. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including the normal transformation of a normal variable that obeys a normal distribution, that is used to optimize a likelihood function and deducing an analytic gradient vector, in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-17 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN107918166B: Also teaches the determination of precipitation using a probability density function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights