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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites analyzing historical typhoons to select a previous maximum typhoon as a reference typhoon; and calculating the future possible maximum typhoon by strengthening the reference typhoon using an ocean-atmosphere coupled model, which is considered to fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, in light of the filed specification (which does not detail the specifics of the “analyzing” and “calculation” steps), the examiner considers the identified abstract idea as encompassing statistical rankings to select historical reference typhoons and parametric scaling formulas and energy flux equations for performing the claimed analyzing and calculating steps; thereby falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed typhoon and nuclear power plant merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract has any impact to these additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because neither the typhoon or nuclear power plant meaningfully limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts while the limitation considering a water depth-specific further sear temperature profile further introduces a limitation that defines an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. As under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “considering” is a limitation that can occur in the human mind. The limitation directed towards a water depth-specific future sea temperature profile merely defines data used by the abstract idea that generically links the abstract idea to a field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 3 further defines the abstract idea and the ocean-atmosphere model. The limitations that define the model, i.e. a sea surface, an interaction between the typhoon and the ocean, sea surface temperature and water depth-specific sea temperature profile merely link the abstract ideas to a field of use, as these additional elements are neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 4 further defines the additional elements that merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the site area, nuclear power plant, and sea area. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 5 further define the data used by the identified abstract idea. The data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as these elements and their related data are neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, “calculating” step is unclear. The examiner is unsure what calculations are occurring when strengthening the reference typhoon using an ocean-atmosphere coupled model. The specification does not appear to define this calculative step? Therefore, clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the strengthening of the reference typhoon includes using a future sea surface temperature rise value in a site area as an ocean-atmosphere boundary value of the ocean-atmosphere coupled model; and considering a water depth-specific future sea temperature profile”. The examiner is unclear how the reference typhoon uses a future sea surface temperature rise value in a site area. What are the metes and bound of “using”. How is a further sea surface temperature rise value used? Further, what the metes and bound are of “considering”. What and how is a water depth-specific future sea temperature profile strength considered and how does that strengthen the reference typhoon?
Claim 3 again recites “using”. What are the metes and bounds of “using” structurally. How is the future sea surface temperature rise value and the water depth-specific future sea temperature profile used?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravela et al. (2007/0168155A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ravela et al. teaches a method of calculating a future possible maximum typhoon (Ravela et al. teaches in [0047] and [0094] a method for estimating a maximum wind speed and maximum wind radius using an intensity model for the calculations of the estimation; Ravela et al. teaches in [0096] the storms being estimated are tropical cyclones, as the Atlantic and East Pacific, tropical cyclones are commonly called "hurricanes" while the common term is "typhoon" for a tropical cyclone that forms in the West Pacific, however both create destructive high winds) for a nuclear power plant (note: “for a nuclear power plant” reads as an intended result of the method; in addition, Ravela et al. teaches the method is used for calculating the maximum typhoon/storm creating winds for “a given location” or “a location of interest”; [0046] or [0097]) analyzing historical typhoons to select a previous maximum typhoon as a reference typhoon (Ravela et al. using historical wind storm data to be selected based on maximum wind speeds; [0085]); and calculating (via the intensity modeling) the future possible maximum typhoon by strengthening the reference typhoon using an ocean-atmosphere coupled model (as Ravela et al. teaches using ocean-atmospheric models, Fig. 15; [0049] [0051]).
With respect to claim 2, Ravela et al. teaches the method wherein the strengthening of the reference typhoon (i.e. disclosed tropical cyclone; [0047]) includes using a future sea surface temperature rise value in a site area as an ocean-atmosphere boundary value of the ocean-atmosphere coupled model (as Ravela et al. teaches using future inputs [0082] of climate conditions and later using estimates of water temperature for the intensity model used to calculate future cyclones at specific location, i.e. positions and time; [0090] [0107]) ; and considering a water depth-specific future sea temperature profile (estimated ocean mixed layer depths; [0090]).
With respect to claim 3, Ravela et al. teaches the method wherein the ocean-atmosphere coupled model simulates a sea surface cooling effect due to an interaction between a typhoon and the ocean using the future sea surface temperature rise value and the water depth-specific future sea temperature profile (Ravela et al. teaches using ocean-atmosphere coupled model when calculating future storms [0049] [0051]; the examiner considers ocean-atmosphere coupled models simulate a sea surface cooling effect from typhoon-ocean interactions, as they capture this by using projected future sea surface temperature rises and water depth-specific future temperature profiles as baseline boundary conditions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravela et al. (2007/0168155A1) in view of Shaltout (Recent sea surface temperature trends and future scenarios for the Red Sea).
With respect to claim 4, Ravela et al. teaches the method wherein the site area includes the nuclear power plant site (i.e. the given location/location of interest; [0046] or [0097]) and a sea area around the nuclear power plant site (i.e. the given location/location of interest and the sea closest to that location) and the future sea surface temperature rise value is obtained based on a sea surface temperature in the site area at the reference typhoon (i.e. as the historical data tied to the location of interest will contain the future estimate of the surface temperature rise value used as the input into the intensity model) but remains silent regarding a scenario-based sea surface temperature rise value.
Shaltout teaches a similar method that uses a scenario-based sea surface temperature rise value (a)s read in the Summary section; Shaltout teaches using SST data to projected sea surface temperatures, including greenhouse gas emissions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Ravela et al. to include the SST modeling capacities of Shaltout to the method of predicting environments because Shaltout teaches such a modification has shown significant improvements when model simulations include updated SST modeling data from that location of interest.
With respect to claim 5, Ravela et al. teaches the method wherein, for the water depth-specific future sea temperature profile, a sea temperature distribution in the site area in a period of time of the reference typhoon and a water depth-specific change rate predicted by a climate model are used in combination (as [0090] of Ravela et al. teaches the upper ocean thermal structure and sea temperature profile inputs for a hurricane or tropical cyclone intensity model. Rather than just a single sea surface temperature, it involves the critical 3-dimensional profile of how heat is stored beneath the surface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kakaire (2008/0300790) which teaches collects data from the ocean to predict storms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights