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
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 1-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for providing timely and accurate estimates of the location and rate-of-spread of a wildfire comprising: receiving, by a processor of a user device via an input device, user defined polygon data estimating a perimeter of a wildfire, wherein the processor is operably connected to the input device, an output device, a communication device and a storage device; generating, by the processor, ellipse data fitting the polygon data; receiving, by the processor via the communication device from at least one weather radar, radar reflectivity data; determining, by the processor based on the radar reflectivity data and the ellipse data, local maxima data and a plurality of fire points; and generating, by the processor based on the plurality of fire points, an updated estimate of the perimeter of the wildfire.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of generating … ellipse data fitting the polygon data; determining … based on the radar reflectivity data and the ellipse data, local maxima data and a plurality of fire points; and generating … based on the plurality of fire points, an updated estimate of the perimeter of the wildfire” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “user defined polygon data estimating a perimeter of a wildfire” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a decision (estimate) regarding selecting polygon data related to a perimeter of a wildfire.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 13.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for providing timely and accurate estimates of the location and rate-of-spread of a wildfire; receiving, by a processor of a user device via an input device (data); wherein the processor is operably connected to the input device, an output device, a communication device and a storage device; receiving, by the processor via the communication device from at least one weather radar, radar reflectivity data;
In Claim 8: A user device for providing timely and accurate estimates of the location and rate-of-spread of a wildfire; a processor; an input device operably connected to the processor; an output device operably connected to the processor; a communication device operably connected to the processor; and a storage device operably connected to the processor, wherein the storage device stores processor executable instructions which when executed cause the processor to: receive, via the input device; receive, via the communication device, radar reflectivity data from at least one weather radar;
In Claim 13: A system for providing timely and accurate estimates of the location and rate-of-spread of a wildfire; at least one weather radar; a user device operably connected to the at least one weather radar; website server operably connected to the user device; wherein the user device comprises a processor operably connected to an input device, an output device, a communication device and a storage device, and wherein the storage device comprises stores processor executable instructions which when executed cause the processor to: receive, via the input device; receive, via the communication device, radar reflectivity data from the at least one weather radar.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processor is an example of generic computer equipment (component) that is generally recited and, therefore, is not qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically recite an input device the processor operably connected to the input device, an output device, a communication device and a storage device represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A step of receiving, by the processor via the communication device from at least one weather radar, radar reflectivity data corresponds to mere data gathering and not meaningful as recited in generality. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such step is “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including Dannevik and Frederick.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-20 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
The following references are considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention:
Shadi ABDOLLAHIAN NOGHABI et al. (US 2023/0222667) discloses estimating location of a fire boundary. The estimated location of the fire boundary may be computed from one or more other types of imaging relevance data, such as meteorological data, radar data, LIDAR data, and/or one or more other types of imaging relevance data.
N. McCarthy et al, “Wildfire and weather radar: A review”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, pp. 266–286, 2018 discloses a synthesis of knowledge on the use of radar for the analysis of wildfire using radar reflectivity signature.
Matthew P. Thompson et al., “A polygon-based modeling approach to assess exposure of resources and assets to wildfire”, Nat Hazards (2013) 67: 627–644, presents an alternative, polygon-based formulation for deriving estimates of highly valued resources and assets (HVRAs) HVRA area burned. This effort enhances investigations into spatial patterns of fire occurrence and behavior by overlaying simulated fire perimeters with mapped HVRA polygons to estimate conditional distributions of HVRA area burned.
Meng Zhao et al. (US 2020/0305258) discloses generating ellipse data fitting the polygon data (polygon may be stored as a series of vertices. For example, the vertices may be a subset of the locations, e.g., such as vertex 210. FIG. 2c shows yet another example of a planar hull. In this example, the set of locations is approximated with an ellipse. Note that in this case, the fit of the ellipse has been improved by leaving out a number of outliers. For example, a minimizing error algorithm, such as a clustering algorithm, may be used to determine the ellipse. Note that storing an ellipse requires less storage than the multiple vertices [0081]).
Konstantin Krivoruchko et al., “Multivariate Areal Interpolation for Continuous and Count Data”, Procedia Environmental Sciences 3, pp. 14–19, 2011, discloses collection of data over one set of polygons and the prediction for a different set of polygons and . discusses diagnostic options for determining how well the data fits a model.
Avi Primo (US 2023/0199460) discloses estimating disaster area locations. Disaster area locations can be estimated as circles, ovals, ellipses and polygons.
William Dannevik et al. (US 2012/0303278) and Scott E. Frederick et al. (US 2020/0082612) discloses using a radar reflectivity, communication means, and a processor in a system for weather-exacerbated threats (wildfires) and environmental mapping, respectively.
However, in regards to Claims 1, 8, and 13 and 14, the claims differ from the closest prior art, NOGHABI, McCarthy, Thompson, Zhao, and Primo, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious generating, by the processor, ellipse data fitting the polygon data; receiving, by the processor via the communication device from at least one weather radar, radar reflectivity data; determining, by the processor based on the radar reflectivity data and the ellipse data, local maxima data and a plurality of fire points; and generating, by the processor based on the plurality of fire points, an updated estimate of the perimeter of the wildfire, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863