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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on May 17, 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 11. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[a system server, having a first processor and a first memory, connected to a network; a data preprocessor, having a second processor, operatively connected to a second memory, a set of data queues, a data comparator and an average generator, operatively connected to the system server; a weather data processor, having a third processor and a third memory, connected to the system server, through the network; a message receiver processor, having a fourth processor and a fourth memory, connected to the system server, through the network; and the first memory, the second memory, the third memory and the fourth memory including a set of instructions that when executed cause the system to:]
retrieve a customer location list;
retrieve an alert data message for a location from the customer location list;
determine a data integrity condition from the alert data message;
generate an alert type based on the data integrity condition;
determine a message type based on the alert type; and
send a message, based on the message type, to the message receiver processor.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations recite mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The system server, having a first processor and a first memory, connected to a network; data preprocessor, having a second processor, operatively connected to a second memory, a set of data queues, a data comparator and an average generator, operatively connected to the system server; weather data processor, having a third processor and a third memory, connected to the system server, through the network; and message receiver processor, having a fourth processor and a fourth memory, connected to the system server, through the network in Claim 1 are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a system server, having a first processor and a first memory, connected to a network; a data preprocessor, having a second processor, operatively connected to a second memory, a set of data queues, a data comparator and an average generator, operatively connected to the system server; a weather data processor, having a third processor and a third memory, connected to the system server, through the network; and a message receiver processor, having a fourth processor and a fourth memory, connected to the system server, through the network. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim(s) 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not change the outcome of the analysis when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claim(s) 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim(s) 1 and 11 and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2018/0292984) in view of Heinz (US 2016/0154692).
Regarding claim(s) 1:
Cho teaches:
A system for issuing weather alerts comprising: a system server, having a first processor and a first memory, connected to a network; (Cho: pgh 22, “As shown, the system includes client devices, a server, a data repository, and a measurement stations connected with one another via a network.”)
a data preprocessor, having a second processor, operatively connected to a second memory, a set of data queues, a data comparator and an average generator, operatively connected to the system server; (Cho: pgh 15, “…the server may take a window of data values…and execute the operation on the window of data values taken as a whole to generate a new data value.”)
a weather data processor, having a third processor and a third memory, connected to the system server, through the network; (Cho: Fig. 1, item 140. Figure displays a network of computing devices.; pgh 42, “The alert includes a graph of temperatures at the University Weather Station for the five hours and 36 hours…before the alert was generated.”)
a message receiver processor, having a fourth processor and a fourth memory, connected to the system server, through the network; and (Cho: pgh 22, “The network may include the Internet, an internet, a local rea network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a wired network, a wireless network, and the like.”)
the first memory, the second memory, the third memory and the fourth memory including a set of instructions that when executed cause the system to: (Cho: pgh 33, “Figs. 3-6 illustrate example interfaces, which may be presented at the client device 110, which is connected to the server via the network 140 and communicates with the server 120.”)
Cho does not teach, however, Heinz teaches:
retrieve a customer location list; (Heinz: pgh 6, “…publishers can connect their streams to the bus so that the events are published on it, and subscribers can subscribe to the producer streams made available on the bus.”)
retrieve an alert data message for a location from the customer location list; (Heinz: pgh 20, “The error handler of certain example embodiments captures error events, processes them, and analyzes their impact on follow-up applications.”)
determine a data integrity condition from the alert data message; (Heinz: pgh 43, “The error handler of certain example embodiments receives events marked in the input layer or in the processing layer as erroneous.”)
generate an alert type based on the data integrity condition; (Heinz: pgh 73, “Such statistics may include…determining the error type that has occurred most often in the last hour…”)
determine a message type based on the alert type; and (Heinz: pgh 22, “If the business user is affected, the error is immediately reported to the user…”)
send a message, based on the message type, to the message receiver processor. (Heinz: pgh 43, “These analysis tasks are designed to report the error and its consequences to the administrator and the business user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho to include the teachings of Heinz to improve the management and correction of errors (Heinz: pgh 11).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 14:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Heinz further teaches:
wherein the data integrity condition is one of a timestamp error and an alert type error. (Heinz: pgh 44, “…the administrator may be presented with an alert for errors, as well as more detailed analysis. The analysis may gather insights into the nature of a detected error, e.g., how often the error occurs, which specific type of error has occurred, whether the error correlates with other events and their values, the likelihood that the error will occur again, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho to include the teachings of Heinz to improve the management and correction of errors (Heinz: pgh 11).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Cho further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the data integrity condition further comprises: detecting a missing time stamp and detecting a discontinuous alert type. (Cho: pgh 16, “…the server may perform interpolation to estimate data values that may correspond to any missing timestamp values.”)
Regarding claim(s) 8:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Cho further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the data integrity condition further comprises: determining if the alert type is present in the alert data message. (Cho: pgh 41, “The first alert notifies John Appleseed when the temperature is above 32 C at University Weather Station of University of Alabama in Birmingham.”)
Regarding claim(s) 11:
Cho teaches:
A method for issuing weather alerts comprising: providing a system server, having a first processor and a first memory, connected to a network; (Cho: pgh 22, “As shown, the system includes client devices, a server, a data repository, and a measurement stations connected with one another via a network.”)
providing a data preprocessor, having a second processor, operatively connected to a second memory, a set of data queues, a data comparator and an average generator, operatively connected to the system server; (Cho: pgh 15, “…the server may take a window of data values…and execute the operation on the window of data values taken as a whole to generate a new data value.”)
providing a weather data processor, having a third processor and a third memory, connected to the system server, through the network; (Cho: Fig. 1, item 140. Figure displays a network of computing devices.; pgh 42, “The alert includes a graph of temperatures at the University Weather Station for the five hours and 36 hours…before the alert was generated.”)
providing a message receiver processor, having a fourth processor and a fourth memory, connected to the system server, through the network; and (Cho: pgh 22, “The network may include the Internet, an internet, a local rea network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a wired network, a wireless network, and the like.”)
providing the first memory, the second memory and the third memory with a set of instructions carry out the steps of: (Cho: pgh 33, “Figs. 3-6 illustrate example interfaces, which may be presented at the client device 110, which is connected to the server via the network 140 and communicates with the server 120.”)
Cho does not teach, however, Heinz teaches:
retrieve a customer location list; (Heinz: pgh 6, “…publishers can connect their streams to the bus so that the events are published on it, and subscribers can subscribe to the producer streams made available on the bus.”)
retrieve an alert data message for a location from the customer location list; (Heinz: pgh 20, “The error handler of certain example embodiments captures error events, processes them, and analyzes their impact on follow-up applications.”)
isolate an alert type from the alert data message; (Heinz: pgh 73, “Such statistics may include…determining the error type that has occurred most often in the last hour…”)
determine a data integrity condition from the alert data message; (Heinz: pgh 43, “The error handler of certain example embodiments receives events marked in the input layer or in the processing layer as erroneous.”)
correct a data integrity error based on the data integrity condition; (Heinz: pgh 22, “The user can correct/adapt the event and rerun corresponding analysis logic.”)
determine a message type based on the data integrity error; and (Heinz: pgh 22, “If the business user is affected, the error is immediately reported to the user…”)
send a message, based on the message type, to the message receiver processor. (Heinz: pgh 43, “These analysis tasks are designed to report the error and its consequences to the administrator and the business user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho to include the teachings of Heinz to improve the management and correction of errors (Heinz: pgh 11).
Regarding claim(s) 18:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Cho further teaches:
wherein the step of correcting the data integrity error further comprises one of a group of: Generating an average timestamp and generating an average alter type. (Cho: pgh 15, “…the server may take a window of data values…and execute the operation on the window of data values taken as a whole to generate a new data value.”)
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Heinz in view of Barber (US 6,295,001).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 12:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Barber further teaches:
wherein the alert type is at least one of a group of severe thunder warning, tornado warning, flash flood warning, special marine warning, snow squall warning, dust storm warning, dust storm advisory, and extreme wind warning. (Barber: col 1, lines 20-30, “The National Weather Service…transmits an alert signal to activate commonly available weather alert receivers to ward of impending severe and potentially life threatening weather such as tornadoes, thunderstorms, flash floods, blizzards and others.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Barber to improve data quality disseminated in emergency situations (Barber: col 1, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 13:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Barber further teaches:
wherein the alert data message is one of a group of GeoJSON, JSON-LD, DWML, OXML, CAP and ATOM. (Barber: col 1, lines 40-50, “…each transmission includes a CAP code which distinguishes between various weather phenomena announced by the NWS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Barber to improve data quality disseminated in emergency situations (Barber: col 1, lines 50-60).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Heinz in view of Webb (US 2007/0100668).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Webb further teaches:
wherein the message type is related to an insurance deductible funding product. (Webb: pgh 5, “…a method for initiating a contract for an insurance deductible payment plan and related services includes presenting to a potential client an offer of a service provider to receive one or more contributions from a client…The presentation includes an offer to make an advance of contributions, as a loan, to pay at least a portion of the insurance deductible when assessed to the client by an insurance carrier.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Webb because it would be an improvement to provide a service enabling more people or businesses to take advantage of high deductibles (Webb: pgh 2).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17:
The combination of Cho/Heinz/Webb, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 6. Webb further teaches:
wherein the insurance deductible funding product is one of a group of a roof deductible product, a vehicle deductible product, a health deductible product, and a boat deductible product. (Webb: pgh 7, “By way of example, the insurance deductible may be an automobile insurance collision deductible.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Webb because it would be an improvement to provide a service enabling more people or businesses to take advantage of high deductibles (Webb: pgh 2).
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Heinz in view of Olson (US 2017/0124603).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19:
The combination of Cho/Heinz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Olson further teaches:
wherein the second processor further comprises: a first core, operatively connected to a second core. (Olson: pgh 60, “The computing device includes a processor that can be any suitable type of processing unit, for example…a processor that has a pipeline or multiple processing capability including having multiple cores…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Olson to exploit the computing power of multiple processing cores. (Olson: pgh 60).
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 20:
The combination of Cho/Heinz/Olson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Cho further teaches:
the data comparator, operatively connected to the first data queue and the second data queue; and (Cho: pgh 15, “…if performing an addition operation, the server may take single data values from the same time-series data file or from different time-series data files and execute the operation on the single data values to generate a new data value.”)
the average generator, running on the first core, executing the steps of: receiving a first data block set; (Cho: pgh 15, “…if performing a zScore operation, the server may take a window of data values…and execute the operation on the window of data values taken as a whole to generate a new data value.”)
receiving a second data block set; (Cho: pgh 15, “…data from multiple sensors is combined using operations…Depending on the type of indicated operations to be performed, the server may perform pointwise operations or sliding window operations.”)
activating the data comparator to generate a comparison of one of a set of time stamps and a set of alert types from the first data block set and the second data block set; (Cho: pgh 16, “…the server may perform interpolation to estimate data values that may correspond to any missing timestamp values.”)
generating an average time stamp from the set of time stamps; and (Cho: pgh 15, “…the server may take a window of data values…and execute the operation on the window of data values taken as a whole to generate a new data value.”)
generating an average alert type from the set of alert types. (Cho: pgh 31, “At operation 240, in response to determining that the physical measurement falls within the initial alert range, the server 120 provides an initial alert to the client device 110.”)
Cho does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Heinz teaches:
wherein the data preprocessor further comprises: a first data queue, of the set of data queues, operatively connected to the first core; (Heinz: pgh 15, “The preprocessing of data is a well-established step in data analysis.”; pgh 76, “…the error handler may use a cache (or database) as a storage area for the stream analysis results.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho to include the teachings of Heinz to improve the management and correction of errors (Heinz: pgh 11). Cho/Heinz does not teach the remaining limitations. However, Olson teaches:
a second data queue, of the set of data queues, operatively connected to the first core; (Olson: pgh 61, “The computing device also includes storage media such as a storage device that can be configured to have multiple modules, such as…networked drives and other memory means including storage media on the processor, or memories are also contemplated as storage devices.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Cho/Heinz to include the teachings of Olson to exploit the computing power of multiple processing cores. (Olson: pgh 60).
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Johnson (US 2011/0270940) discloses a multimedia alerting system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN O PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, MICHAEL ANDERSON can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/JOHN O PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
October 31, 2025
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693