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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the timely response to the 2/5/2025 Non-Final Rejection, filed 5/4/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2026, 2/6/2026 & 2/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
4. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment(s) to claims 1, 12, 25, 26, cancelled claims 3, 16, 19-21, 24, and new claim 27 in the Request for Reconsideration filed 5/4/2026.
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 1-2, 4-15, 17-18, 22-23 and 25-27 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, 4-15, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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) 1-2, 4-15, 17-18, 22-23 and 25-27 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) 1-2, 4-15, 17-18, 22-23 and 25-27 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) 1-2, 4-15, 17-18, 22-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buhulaiga et al. (US 20200193699 A1)
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-18, 22-23 and 25-27 Buhulaiga 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).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument(s) to Step 2A, Prong 1 “The Claim Is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea” and Step 2A, Prong 2 “Any Abstract Idea is Integrated into a Practical Application”
are not persuasive. The applicant’s position is the claim(s) are “Physical-world measurements and transformations” and also a “practical application”. The examiners position is NOT whether the subject matter of monitoring environmental data as a whole is an abstract idea but that the claimed method steps on their own merit is an abstract idea involving an analysis of data derived from a generic weather-related computer system. When observing the claimed method steps as currently presented with respect to a computer method and analyzing pixel data / images;
receiving event notifications derived from environmental data
collecting real-time image pixel data
combining with elevation data
estimating water depth and severity
When analyzing the claimed steps alone and the applicant’s words noted above, it would appear that a weather / environmental related computer system receiving / assessing data of any type and making calculations with said data for the purpose predicting / confirming an output, a possible output or in this case “creating a model”, would fall well within the scope of a manual calculation and / or analysis process. Furthermore, it has been held (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III- III C) that the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.[AltContent: rect]
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This concept is explained further below with respect to point D.
Section C: Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection of an abstract idea without significantly more, stands.
8. Regarding the applicant’s argument(s) that Albrecht et al (US 2022/0156636) and Buhulaiga et al (US 2020/0193699) does not anticipate the pending claims are not persuasive. Since the current pending claim set are currently rejected under 35 USC 101 as an “abstract” idea, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections, stands.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights