DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/21/2025, 4/9/2025 & 11/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
4. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 11/15/2024
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-15, 17-18, 22-23 & 25 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.
Analyzing claim 1, the claim recites a computer implemented method for monitoring one or more environmental events. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed series of steps:
(receiving a notification of an environmental event occurring, wherein the notification is derived from first environmental data; identifying an area on Earth corresponding to the notification; determining that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria; in response to the determination that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria, monitoring the event by collecting additional environmental data comprising image pixel data in real time, and collecting non-real time data relating to the event comprising elevation data relating to the identified data; determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event according to one or more relevance criteria; in response to determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event, tagging the additional data to the event in a geographically indexed database; and using the tagged data in the database to estimate the severity of the event at locations within the identified area wherein the estimation comprises: analyzing pixels in the image data to determine whether or not water is present in the area on earth corresponding to each pixel; and using the pixel analysis in combination with the elevation data to determine the depth of the water at locations within the identified area; thereby creating a model of the extent and severity of the event.), appears to be a process that can be implemented through manual analysis, measurements and/or mathematical calculations while applying the abstract idea and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, the claimed “computer” method does not appear to add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer and radar implementation methodology with respect to analyzing weather / environmental data via imagery (pixels), anticipating patterns and / or behavior and indexing said data within a database via a model.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 2-15, 17-18 & 22-23 respectively, considering the additional method steps individually or in ordered combination, the recitations directed to the use through data (identifying, collecting, social media , comparing, monitoring, via images determining severity, a satellite) in these claims at a high level of generality is requiring no more than a generic analyzing meteorology / environmental computer systems that are well-known, routine and conventional activities (i.e receiving data, analyzing results, making a determination and providing a database). These recitations do not constitute applying the judicial with, or by use of, a particular machine as discussed in the Alice Supreme Court Decision. Unlike Diamond V. Diehr, the claims here do not recite doing anything meaningful with the result of the calculations that would permit an improvement to the technology to be realized. As such, the additional limitations fail to qualify as "significantly more" than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 25, considering the additional elements individually or in ordered combination, the recitations directed to the use of a processor at a high level of generality is requiring no more than processors for computer implemented meteorology / environmental computer systems that are well-known, routine and conventional activities (i.e receiving data, analyzing results, making a determination and providing a database). These recitations do not constitute applying the judicial with, or by use of, a particular machine as discussed in the Alice Supreme Court Decision. Unlike Diamond V. Diehr, the claims here do not recite doing anything meaningful with the result of the calculations that would permit an improvement to the technology to be realized. As such, the additional limitations fail to qualify as "significantly more" than the judicial exception.
6. 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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.
For example, machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine-readable media in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested to state a non-transitory computer readable medium instead of a computer readable medium. (See MPEP 2106 (I) - i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 2007))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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) 1-15, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albrecht et al (US 20220156636 A1)
Regarding claims 1-15, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26 Albrecht et al teaches receiving a notification of an environmental event occurring, wherein the notification is derived from first environmental data; identifying an area on Earth corresponding to the notification; determining that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria; in response to the determination that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria, monitoring the event by collecting additional environmental data comprising image pixel data in real time, and collecting non-real time data relating to the event comprising elevation data relating to the identified data; determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event according to one or more relevance criteria; in response to determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event, tagging the additional data to the event in a geographically indexed database; and using the tagged data in the database to estimate the severity of the event at locations within the identified area wherein the estimation comprises: analyzing pixels in the image data to determine whether or not water is present in the area on earth corresponding to each pixel; and using the pixel analysis in combination with the elevation data to determine the depth of the water at locations within the identified area; thereby creating a model of the extent and severity of the event. (See Fig. 1 and entire specification).
8. Claim(s) 1-15, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buhulaiga et al. (US 20200193699 A1)
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) 1-15, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albrecht et al (US 20220156636 A1)
Regarding claims 1-15, 17-18, 22-23, 25-26 Albrecht et al teaches receiving a notification of an environmental event occurring, wherein the notification is derived from first environmental data; identifying an area on Earth corresponding to the notification; determining that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria; in response to the determination that the event meets one or more predetermined event criteria, monitoring the event by collecting additional environmental data comprising image pixel data in real time, and collecting non-real time data relating to the event comprising elevation data relating to the identified data; determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event according to one or more relevance criteria; in response to determining that the additional environmental data is relevant to the event, tagging the additional data to the event in a geographically indexed database; and using the tagged data in the database to estimate the severity of the event at locations within the identified area wherein the estimation comprises: analyzing pixels in the image data to determine whether or not water is present in the area on earth corresponding to each pixel; and using the pixel analysis in combination with the elevation data to determine the depth of the water at locations within the identified area; thereby creating a model of the extent and severity of the event. (See Fig. 1 and entire specification).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12169126 B2 Camera-based liquid stage measurement
US 11521379 B1 Method for flood disaster monitoring and disaster analysis based on vision transformer
US 11227477 B2 Systems and methods for determining maximum alert geography for a hazard
US 11107025 B2 System and method for producing and distributing information relevant to water events
US 20170242873 A1 INTEGRATED CENTRALIZED PROPERTY DATABASE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855