Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 September 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-8) recite “A water vapor observation method comprising: acquiring a water vapor value at each predetermined point measured based on a received signal from a satellite; extracting a feature value for each predetermined point from a captured image captured from sky; and correcting the water vapor value based on the feature value for each predetermined point.”
Claims 1-8, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “acquiring a water vapor value at each predetermined point measured based on a received signal from a satellite; extracting a feature value for each predetermined point from a captured image captured from sky; and correcting the water vapor value based on the feature value for each predetermined point.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “acquiring a water vapor value at each predetermined point measured based on a received signal from a satellite; extracting a feature value for each predetermined point from a captured image captured from sky; and correcting the water vapor value based on the feature value for each predetermined point.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 9 and 17, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 10-16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0063] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inoue et al (US 11,703,462) disclose a water vapor observation device that includes an antenna, an RF amplifier, and processing circuitry. The antenna receives radio waves radiated from an atmosphere including water vapor. The RF amplifier amplifies the received radio waves and generates an observation signal. The processing circuitry is programmed to at least: use the observation signal to select a plurality of observation frequencies excluding an accuracy degraded frequency; and calculate a water vapor index using the spectral intensities of the plurality of observation frequencies. This configuration makes it possible to accurately observe a water vapor amount. Minowa et al (US 10,690,603) disclose a water vapor observing system includes a transmission unit configured to transmit transmission waves, one of a reception unit configured to receive reflection waves caused by the transmission waves reflected on and returned from a stationary object as reception waves, and a reception unit disposed at a different position from the transmission unit and configured to receive the transmission waves as reception waves, and a relative water vapor amount calculating module configured to calculate a relative water vapor amount that is a relative value of water vapor with respect to a reference water vapor amount being a comparison target, based on the reception wave received by the one of the reception units. Okumura et al (US 2022/0050212) disclose a water vapor observation device that includes a water vapor index acquisition module which acquires a water vapor index calculated based on radio wave intensities of at least two frequencies out of radio waves received by a microwave radiometer, a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) precipitable water vapor acquisition module which acquires a GNSS precipitable water amount calculated based on an atmospheric delay of a GNSS signal received by a GNSS receiver, a correlation data generation module which generates correlation data between the water vapor index and the GNSS precipitable water amount based on the water vapor index and the GNSS precipitable water amount at a plurality of time points during a predetermined period, and a precipitable water vapor calculation module which calculates a precipitable water amount based on the correlation data from the water vapor index obtained based on the microwave radiometer. I
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853