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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the amendments filed on 09/19/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 10-13 are currently amended.
Claims 3-7, 9 and 14-20 were previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…collect current weather data; generate weather predictions that simulate future states of the atmosphere through time based on weather data and a storm impact model; receive weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate weather prediction training data by analyzing the weather training data train the storm impact model using the weather prediction training data, the property training data, and the property damage training data to generate a trained storm impact model that includes relationships between the weather prediction training data and the property training data and the property damage training data; receive the current weather data; generate a current weather prediction by analyzing the current weather data via the weather prediction model; receive current property data; and generate a data visualization screen including an event map, the event map providing a visual representation of predicted outcomes associated with a weather event”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. determine predicted property damage based on the current weather prediction and the current property data) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of a drone imagery network, one or more sensors, a processor, a memory device, a weather prediction model, a machine learning algorithm, a database and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collect …current weather data; storing …a weather prediction model; generate …weather predictions; receive …weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate …weather prediction training data by analyzing …the weather training data; train… the storm impact model using the training data…to generate… a trained storm impact model; receive… the current weather data; generate… a current weather prediction by analyzing… the current weather data; receive… current property data; generate… a data visualization screen including an event map; update …the data visualization screen by adjusting …the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage; and deploy …the drone imagery network based on the predicted property damage”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The event map is also further stated at a high level of generality to include a visual representation of the predicted outcomes associated with a weather event and the predicted property damage. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the drone imagery network one or more sensors, the processor, the memory device, the weather prediction model, the machine learning algorithm, the database and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collect …current weather data; storing …a weather prediction model; generate …weather predictions; receive …weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate …weather prediction training data by analyzing …the weather training data; train… the storm impact model using the training data…to generate… a trained storm impact model; receive… the current weather data; generate… a current weather prediction by analyzing… the current weather data; receive… current property data; generate… a data visualization screen including an event map; update …the data visualization screen by adjusting …the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage; and deploy …the drone imagery network based on the predicted property damage”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claim 1. Claims 2-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor, the database, the one or more user devices, the warehouse system, the distribution center system, the damage response system and the network of radar devices included in the dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify …an area associated with a weather event; receive …location data indicative of property location; identify …at least one property by comparing… the location data to the area associated with the weather event; and deploy… the drone imagery network” (claim 2); “transmit …a notification to one or more user based on the predicted property damage” (claim 5); “transmit …response instructions to one or more user based on the predicted property damage” (claim 6); identify… a predicted weather event, cause a visualization of a mapping of the predicted property damage to be provided…” (claim 8); “allocate…physical resources to the particular property based on the predicted property damage” (claims 9 and 10); “updating …the data visualization screen to include a first alert notifying of possible damage…” (claim 13); “cause… physical resources to be deployed to a particular property based on the predicted property damage” (claim 14); ”receive…at least a portion of the weather data” (claim 20), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the processor, the database, the one or more user devices, the warehouse system, the distribution center system, the damage response system and the network of radar devices included in the dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14 and 20 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…identify …an area associated with a weather event; receive …location data indicative of property location; identify …at least one property by comparing… the location data to the area associated with the weather event; and deploy… the drone imagery network” (claim 2); “transmit …a notification to one or more user based on the predicted property damage” (claim 5); “transmit …response instructions to one or more user based on the predicted property damage” (claim 6); identify… a predicted weather event, cause a visualization of a mapping of the predicted property damage to be provided…” (claim 8); “allocate…physical resources to the particular property based on the predicted property damage” (claims 9 and 10); “updating …the data visualization screen to include a first alert notifying of possible damage…” (claim 13); “cause… physical resources to be deployed to a particular property based on the predicted property damage” (claim 14); ”receive…at least a portion of the weather data” (claim 20), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…Step 2A - Prong 1 - The Claims Are Not Directed to An Abstract Idea…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-8).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Office has explained above that the claim recites the limitations of “…collect current weather data; generate weather predictions that simulate future states of the atmosphere through time based on weather data and a storm impact model; receive weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate weather prediction training data by analyzing the weather training data train the storm impact model using the weather prediction training data, the property training data, and the property damage training data to generate a trained storm impact model that includes relationships between the weather prediction training data and the property training data and the property damage training data; receive the current weather data; generate a current weather prediction by analyzing the current weather data via the weather prediction model; receive current property data; and generate a data visualization screen including an event map, the event map providing a visual representation of predicted outcomes associated with a weather event”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. determine predicted property damage based on the current weather prediction and the current property data) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (collect current weather data; generate weather predictions that simulate future states of the atmosphere through time based on weather data and a storm impact model; receive weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate weather prediction training data by analyzing the weather training data train the storm impact model using the weather prediction training data, the property training data, and the property damage training data to generate a trained storm impact model that includes relationships between the weather prediction training data and the property training data and the property damage training data; receive the current weather data; generate a current weather prediction by analyzing the current weather data via the weather prediction model; receive current property data; and generate a data visualization screen including an event map, the event map providing a visual representation of predicted outcomes associated with a weather event) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including insurance, i.e. determine predicted property damage based on the current weather prediction and the current property data) in the Applicant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (collect current weather data; generate weather predictions that simulate future states of the atmosphere through time based on weather data and a storm impact model; receive weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate weather prediction training data by analyzing the weather training data train the storm impact model using the weather prediction training data, the property training data, and the property damage training data to generate a trained storm impact model that includes relationships between the weather prediction training data and the property training data and the property damage training data; receive the current weather data; generate a current weather prediction by analyzing the current weather data via the weather prediction model; receive current property data; and generate a data visualization screen including an event map, the event map providing a visual representation of predicted outcomes associated with a weather event) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. (Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea); processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. 728 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Therefore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), it is reasonable to conclude that Applicant’s claims are directed to a judicial exception…” (Please see the remarks on pages 7-8). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Step 2A - Prong 2 - Even Assuming the Claims Recite an Abstract Idea, Any Abstract Idea Is Integrated into A Practical Application…” (Please see the remarks on pages 8-12).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the system claimed of a drone imagery network, one or more sensors, a processor, a memory device, a weather prediction model, a machine learning algorithm, a database and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collect …current weather data; storing …a weather prediction model; generate …weather predictions; receive …weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate …weather prediction training data by analyzing …the weather training data; train… the storm impact model using the training data…to generate… a trained storm impact model; receive… the current weather data; generate… a current weather prediction by analyzing… the current weather data; receive… current property data; generate… a data visualization screen including an event map; update …the data visualization screen by adjusting …the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage; and deploy …the drone imagery network based on the predicted property damage”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The event map is also further stated at a high level of generality to include a visual representation of the predicted outcomes associated with a weather event and the predicted property damage. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…Step 2B - The Claims Add Significantly More to Any Abstract Idea…” (Please see the remarks on page 12).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the drone imagery network one or more sensors, the processor, the memory device, the weather prediction model, the machine learning algorithm, the database and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collect …current weather data; storing …a weather prediction model; generate …weather predictions; receive …weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate …weather prediction training data by analyzing …the weather training data; train… the storm impact model using the training data…to generate… a trained storm impact model; receive… the current weather data; generate… a current weather prediction by analyzing… the current weather data; receive… current property data; generate… a data visualization screen including an event map; update …the data visualization screen by adjusting …the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage; and deploy …the drone imagery network based on the predicted property damage”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, the additional limitations of the drone imagery network one or more sensors, the processor, the memory device, the weather prediction model, the machine learning algorithm, the database and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “collect …current weather data; storing …a weather prediction model; generate …weather predictions; receive …weather training data, property training data, and property damage training data; generate …weather prediction training data by analyzing …the weather training data; train… the storm impact model using the training data…to generate… a trained storm impact model; receive… the current weather data; generate… a current weather prediction by analyzing… the current weather data; receive… current property data; generate… a data visualization screen including an event map; update …the data visualization screen by adjusting …the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage; and deploy …the drone imagery network based on the predicted property damage”, which when viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Rather, these are improvements in a business/financial problem to a business/financial solution in a process of “predict of weather events, prediction of expected losses and outcomes, predict various attributes of one or more insurance claims associated with a weather event to generate responses in response to one or more predicted outcomes, such as, likely insurance claims. This business/financial solution is also one of the business solutions that the Applicant’s invention tries to solve (please see the Applicant’s specification in paragraphs 2-13). Thus, there is no improvements technology in the Applicant’s claims.
Furthermore, the graphical user interface is recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “generate …a data visualization screen including an event map, the event map providing …a visual representation of predicted outcomes associated with a weather event; update… the data visualization screen by adjusting… the event map to include a visualization of the predicted property damage in response to determining the predicted property damage”, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, claim 1 of Example 37 recites: “receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is an amount of use of each icon; determining, by a processor, the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time; and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use”. The additional elements of Claim 1 of Example 37 recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Thus, Applicant’s claim 1 is not similar to claim 1 of Example 37 (please see the remarks on pages 11-12).
For the above reasons, it is believed that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
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 Tien Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
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.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694