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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-5, 9-16, 20-27, and 31-33 (Invention I), with traverse, in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8, 17-19, and 28-30 (Invention II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (Group) II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Please review “Response to Arguments” section.
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 1-5, 9, 11-16, 20, 22-27, 31 and 33 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 of determining ocean state based on a four dimensional variational (4DVAR) model to assimilate acoustic pressure observations, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, data associated with a prior ocean forecast state;
receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations;
receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations;
determining, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state based on a forward acoustic model, on an adjoint acoustic model, on the data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and ocean salinity observations, and on the data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations; wherein determining further comprises: employing, by the processing device, tangent linear and adjoint operators to link one or more observation operators to the 4DVAR model as observation operators, and modifying, by the processing device, the 4DVAR model to a 3DVAR model by reducing the tangent linear and adjoint operators to identity matrices, wherein the modifying reduces computation time, wherein an embedded background error covariance associated with the 3DVAR model comprises a linearized balance operator and an adjoint of the linearized balance operator, wherein the linearized balance operator is based on geostrophy and hydrostatics to approximate dynamical balance relationships lost from the modification of the 4DVAR model to the 3DVAR model;
generating, by the processing device, a current ocean state based on the determined correction; and conducting a water-based operation based on the generated current ocean state.”
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.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 12 and 23.
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 of determining ocean state, the method comprising: receiving, by a processing device, data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations; conducting a water-based operation based on the generated current ocean state;
In Claim 12: A system for determining an ocean state, the system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device operably coupled to the processing device, the memory device storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to perform: receiving data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations; conducting a water-based operation based on the generated current ocean state;
In Claim 23: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions, the computer-readable instructions, when executed, cause a processing device to perform: receiving data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations; conducting a water-based operation based on the generated current ocean state.
The additional elements in the preamble 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 processing device or non-transitory computer readable medium (Claims 1 and 23) and a processing device; and a memory device operably coupled to the processing device, the memory device storing computer-readable instructions (Claim 12) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not meaningful and are qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically recite receiving information (for example, in Claim 1: data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations) represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the … 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”. The limitation “conducting a water-based operation based on the generated current ocean state” is recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate 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.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, 24-27, and 31-33 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea mental process/mathematical relationship steps such as in Claims 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 20, 25, 26, and 31) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 2, 13, and 24 (hydrophone), Claim 5, 16, and 27 (providing the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations), Claim 10, 21, and 32 (conducting a water-based operation), and Claims 11, 22, 33 (display) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Examiner Note with Regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-16, 20, 22-27, 31 and 33 are distinguished over prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claims 1, 12, and 23, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Lavely, Hursky, Shapiro, and Barker, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious employing tangent linear and adjoint operators to link one or more observation operators to the 4DVAR model as observation operators and “modifying, by the processing device, the 4DVAR model to a 3DVAR model by reducing the tangent linear and adjoint operators to identity matrices, wherein the modifying reduces computation time, wherein an embedded background error covariance associated with the 3DVAR model comprises a linearized balance operator and an adjoint of the linearized balance operator, wherein the linearized balance operator is based on geostrophy and hydrostatics to approximate dynamical balance relationships lost from the modification of the 4DVAR model to the 3DVAR mode, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (pp.1-2):
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amedments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evan Shapiro et al. (US 12078775) discloses method for forecasting weather uses a trained machine learning model to determine the error in a weather forecast, e.g., for a selected ocean region, that integrate observations into forecasts, e.g., Kalman-filters or Adjoint models.
”, American Meteorological Society, Volume 132, 2004, pp.897-014, discloses a four dimensional variational (4DVAR) model to assimilate surface pressure observations, wherein the linearized balance operator is based on geostrophy and hydrostatics.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2857
Prosecution Insights