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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on November 25, 2025. Claims 1-20 were pending in the Application. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 12 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus claims 1-11, 13-18, and 20 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “applying the risk factor … by determining geographic bounding area including the home and one or more and one or more topographical features, …” should read “applying the risk factor … by determining a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, …”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The computing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the computing apparatus to perform the steps of: present the mitigating action …; receive data verifying …; and apply an incentive …” should read “The computing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor of the parallel processing environment, further cause the processor of the parallel processing environment to perform the steps of: presenting the mitigating action …; receiving data verifying …; and applying an incentive …”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The computing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the computing apparatus to perform the steps of: that, when executed by the processor of the parallel processing environment, further cause the processor of the parallel processing environment to perform the steps of: selecting an optimal booklet …; and …”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The computing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the computing apparatus to perform the steps of: …” should read “The computing apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor of the parallel processing environment, further cause the processor of the parallel processing environment to perform the steps of: …”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “launching an onboarding flow … including information pertaining to-at least one of the user …” should read “launching an onboarding flow … including information pertaining to at least one of the user …”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: determine existing home …; … and present the mitigating action” should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: determining existing home …; … and presenting the mitigating action”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: present the mitigating action …; and verify the mitigating action …” should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: presenting the mitigating action …; and verifying the mitigating action …”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: select an optimal booklet …; and output a recommendation …” should read “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the computer cause the computer to perform the operations of: selecting an optimal booklet …; and outputting a recommendation …”.
Response to Arguments
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and respectfully asserts that “regarding Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are not directed to generic risk mitigation or conventional business methods but rather to specific technological improvements in climate risk assessment technology that integrate advanced climate modeling with personalized analysis; regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application through specific technical implementations and concrete mitigation steps that provide meaningful limits; the amended claims demonstrate that the mathematical climate modeling is integrated into a practical technological application; the amended claim is similar to eligible PEG Example 45 where the example shows that the eligible claims integrate the abstract idea into an improved injection modeling system using feedback control calculations to determine operating conditions that improve quality; Applicant’s claims similarly integrate mathematical climate models into an improved climate risk assessment system that enhance prediction accuracy through specific geographic analysis; regarding Step 2B, even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claims would be eligible under Step 2B as providing an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any judicial exception; the claims recite multiple technical elements in an unconventional way; the climate models include non-hydrostatic climate modeling with physical parameterization, geographic bounding area analysis tailored to climate-affecting topographical features, and then technology that can adjust the geographic scope to improve prediction accuracy; and the combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of climate risk assessment..”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20250117857 A1, para 1), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘857 A1, para 1), discloses that the invention relates to mitigating climate related risks for a particular home and to a service that calculates specific climate predictions as applied to homeowners, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 1 provides additional evidence, and recites the method limitations “determining, a climate risk advisor, a risk factor based on one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models generating one or more climate predictions based on physical parameterizations of key atmospheric processes, wherein the one or more non-hydrostatic models simulate an atmospheric condition; applying, by the climate risk advisor, the risk factor to a specific home by determining a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding area increases an accuracy of the one or more climate model predictions for a location of the specific home; determining, by the climate risk advisor, an effect of the risk factor on the specific home over a period of time; performing, by the climate risk advisor, a mitigating action personalized to the specific home based on the risk factor; and arranging and displaying, by the climate risk advisor, a layout on a user interface including the risk factor and the mitigating action”, where the italicized claim language represents the abstract idea of “mitigating risk to a home.” (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim (the bolded claim language), such as “a climate risk advisor”, “one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models”, and “arranging and displaying, by the climate risk advisor, a layout on a user interface including the risk factor and the mitigating action”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “mitigating risk to a home.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “mitigating risk to a home”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)”.
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “mitigating risk to a home.” The claims are not directed to improving computers nor related technologies, but improving the method for “mitigating risk to a home”. For potential improvement in an abstract idea “mitigating risk to a home”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a mitigating risk to a home concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Final Rejection Office Action dated August 29, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended to overcome the current record of art and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record individually, and in combination, fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious at least "determining, by a climate risk advisor, a risk factor based on one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models generating one or more climate predictions based on physical parameterizations of key atmospheric processes, wherein the non-hydrostatic models simulate atmospheric conditions"; and "applying, by the climate risk advisor, the risk factor to a specific home by determining a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding area increases accuracy of the climate predictions for the location of the specific home". After further consideration and search, no prior art was found to render at least these limitations obvious. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation - Optional Language
Claim 5, recites the limitation: “based at least in part on receiving an indication of an interaction with the layout, associating an applet corresponding to a selected service …”. The limitation “associating an applet corresponding to a selected service …” does not necessarily occur in the case “an indication of an interaction with the layout is not received.” (MPEP § 2103 I C and MPEP § 2111.04 II).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a “method. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites “mitigating risk to a home”, which is a form of fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites the method steps “determining, a climate risk advisor, a risk factor based on one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models generating one or more climate predictions based on physical parameterizations of key atmospheric processes, wherein the one or more non-hydrostatic models simulate an atmospheric condition; applying, by the climate risk advisor, the risk factor to a specific home by determining a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding area increases an accuracy of the one or more climate model predictions for a location of the specific home; determining, by the climate risk advisor, an effect of the risk factor on the specific home over a period of time; performing, by the climate risk advisor, a mitigating action personalized to the specific home based on the risk factor; and arranging and displaying, by the climate risk advisor, a layout on a user interface including the risk factor and the mitigating action”. The abstract idea is in italics, and the additional elements are in bold. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim, such as “a climate risk advisor”, “one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models”, and “arranging and displaying, by the climate risk advisor, a layout on a user interface including the risk factor and the mitigating action”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “mitigating risk to a home”.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describes the concept of “mitigating risk to a home” using computer technology (e.g., “a climate risk advisor” and “one or more predictive non-hydrostatic numerical climate models”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And as the computer does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea, they do not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 1 is non-statutory.
Dependent claims 2-7 further describe the abstract idea of “mitigating risk to a home”, which is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4 do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and that do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implementing the acts of “mitigating risk to a home”, when analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claim 5 recites a new additional element of “launching an onboarding flow associated with the selected service”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor technical field.
Dependent claim 6 recites a new additional element of “a device associated with a user account”, which does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, it does not improve computer functionality nor improve another technology nor technical field.
Hence, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11, 13-18, and 20 are 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.
New Matter
Claim 1 recites, “applying, … a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding area increases an accuracy of the one or more climate model predictions for a location of the specific home …”. Specification, (PG Pub US 20250117857 A1, para 29) recites “… The climate risk advisor 125 can, for example, personalize the accuracy of the climate model(s) 190 prediction by determining an appropriate range for climate predictions, such as determining a bounding box that includes the home and geographic features that affect climate, such as mountain ranges, oceans, rivers, topography relief that impacts wind patterns, or any other topography features that provides climate context ... The climate risk advisor 125 can determine a bounding area that includes the rift valley and the mountain range, as those topology features would increase rainfall beyond the average of the area in general. …”, which is directed to the climate risk advisor personalizing the accuracy of the climate model prediction by determining an appropriate range for climate predictions, such as determining a bounding box including the home and the geographic features that affect climate, and not directed to a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding increases an accuracy of the one or more climate model predictions for a location of the specific home, as being claimed. Specification, (‘857 A1, para 29), lacks sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function “a geographic bounding area including the home and one or more topographical features, wherein determining the geographic bounding area increases an accuracy of the one or more climate model predictions for a location of the specific home” to be performed. Therefore, this is an issue of new matter, which is matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that has been added after the application filing. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 8 and 15. Dependent claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1; dependent claims 9-11 and 13-14, which depend from claim 8; and dependent claims 16-18 and 20, which depend from claim 15, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2163.06 I).
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 8-11 and 13-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claim 8 recites “A computing apparatus comprising: a parallel processing environment including a plurality of processing units capable of executing instructions and performing operations in parallel with each other; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of the parallel processing environment, cause the computing apparatus to perform the steps of: determining …; applying …; determining …; performing …; arranging …; based at least in part …, associating …; and launching …” It is not clear whether the processor of the parallel processing environment or the computing apparatus, or some combination thereof, is executing the instructions to perform the steps of determining, applying, determining, performing, arranging, associating, and launching.
MPEP § 2173.02 I recites “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” Therefore, the scope of claim 8 is unclear. Additionally, similar language is recited in claims 9, 11, and 13-14. Dependent claims 9-11 and 13-14, which depend from claim 8, are also similarly rejected. (MPEP § 2173.02 I and In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eldering et al (U. S. Patent No. 8280633 B1) – Weather Risk Estimation System And Method
Eldering discloses a method of presenting a visual representation of a probable impact of a weather phenomenon to a location including obtaining an impact function for the location by combining a weather function corresponding to a characteristic of the weather phenomenon with a damage function associated with the same characteristic. A graphic representation of an interest at the location is obtained. A visual representation of a probable impact of the weather phenomenon on the interest by modifying the graphic representation of the interest, where the modification is based on a predicted impact to the interest determined using the impact function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN R CHISM whose telephone number is (571)272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM – 3:00 PM EST.
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 D. Donlon can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEVEN CHISM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692