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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claim(s) 4, and 7-8 is/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.
Claim 4 recites “the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to any one of claims 1” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to any one of claims 1” which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “a lightning strike risk degree display system comprising: the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to any one of claims 1” which renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1:
Claim 1:
A lightning strike risk degree derivation device that derives a lightning strike risk degree for each of a plurality of regions divided by latitude and longitude into a mesh shape, the lightning strike risk degree derivation device comprising: an echo intensity derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of echo intensity in a predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from meteorological radar; an air temperature derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of air temperature in the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from a meteorological observation device; a feature amount derivation unit that derives a feature amount to be used to derive a lightning strike risk degree; and a lightning strike risk degree derivation unit that derives the lightning strike risk degree using the feature amount, wherein the feature amount derivation unit derives integrated echo intensity that is an integrated value of the echo intensity in at least part of the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions, and the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit derives an altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions using the integrated echo intensity and the altitude distribution of the air temperature.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a device, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “an echo intensity derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of echo intensity in a predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from meteorological radar; an air temperature derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of air temperature in the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from a meteorological observation device; a feature amount derivation unit that derives a feature amount to be used to derive a lightning strike risk degree; and a lightning strike risk degree derivation unit that derives the lightning strike risk degree using the feature amount, wherein the feature amount derivation unit derives integrated echo intensity that is an integrated value of the echo intensity in at least part of the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions, and the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit derives an altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions using the integrated echo intensity and the altitude distribution of the air temperature”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry) and data evaluation. MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the claim is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. They are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activity) and data outputting (i.e., post-solution activity) in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 is ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-6, and 8:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim(s) 2-6, and 8 recite a device, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-6, and 8 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept and data evaluation (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-6, and 8 are ineligible.
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) 1-3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deierling et al. (US 2015/0073710 A1 “DEIERLING”), in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2021/0072423 A1 “YOSHIKAWA”).
Regarding claim 1, DEIERLING discloses (Examiner’s note: What DEIERLING does not disclose is ) a lightning strike risk degree derivation device that derives a lightning strike risk degree (determining lightning potential [0026]) for each of a plurality of regions divided by latitude and longitude into a mesh shape (lightning prediction zone 300 further includes grid locations denoted by “X” characters 304. A grid location is a geographical position in any 2 or 3-dimensional coordinate system commonly known to those of skill in the art. For example, radar data may correlate to a grid location having a latitude, longitude and altitude position [0028 & FIG. 3]), the lightning strike risk degree derivation device comprising:
an echo intensity derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of echo intensity in a predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from meteorological radar (the predictor field may include a vertically integrated ice mass. The vertically integrated ice mass is determined based on a summation of the radar-derived ice mass at each grid point in a vertical direction that exhibits radar echoes exceeding a threshold, starting at a level determined by the temperature threshold [0037]); (a product of volume-average radar echo intensity and average cloud depth [0011])
an air temperature derivation unit that derives an altitude distribution of air temperature in the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using observation data acquired from a meteorological observation device (the predictor field may include a cloud depth. Cloud depth is the distance between two relevant temperature levels. In particular, cloud depth is the vertical distance between the altitude given by the temperature threshold and the altitude given by the radar intensity threshold [0035])
a feature amount derivation unit that derives a feature amount to be used to derive a lightning strike risk degree; and a lightning strike risk degree derivation unit that derives the lightning strike risk degree using the feature amount (first lightning potential is determined using at least the first predictor field and the second predictor field. In embodiments, additional predictor fields, such as the third predictor field, may be used to determine the lightning potential for a target location [0041])
wherein the feature amount derivation unit derives integrated echo intensity that is an integrated value of the echo intensity in at least part of the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions (the predictor field may include a vertically integrated ice mass. The vertically integrated ice mass is determined based on a summation of the radar-derived ice mass at each grid point in a vertical direction that exhibits radar echoes exceeding a threshold, starting at a level determined by the temperature threshold [0037])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YOSHIKAWA teaches that the observation parameters 11 are parameters regarding weather observation data. The observation parameters 11 are parameters obtained from a weather sensor group 110. The observation parameters 11 include typically time-space distributions of echo intensity and Doppler velocity acquired from airport weather radars, altitude distributions of an aircraft location and temperature acquired from a flight data recorder or a radiosonde, and the like [0037]. The step of estimating a lightning threat includes identifying a lightning weather condition at a predetermined resolution on the basis of the observation parameter, the prediction parameter, the case data, and the intermediate parameter [0019]. The display unit 40 displays a result of identification of the lightning weather condition and a result of estimation of the lightning risk on a map [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DEIERLING to include the teachings of YOSHIKAWA, because doing so would provide and improve system’s accuracy capable of detecting a lightning threat, thereby improving safety, as recognized by YOSHIKAWA.
Regarding claim 2, DEIERLING/ YOSHIKAWA discloses the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to claim 1, wherein the feature amount derivation unit derives specific temperature zone integrated echo intensity that is an integrated value of the echo intensity corresponding to a first temperature range within the predetermined altitude range for each of the plurality of regions using the altitude distribution of the air temperature, and the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit derives the altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions using at least the specific temperature zone integrated echo intensity (step 106 may determine whether temperature data is within a temperature range instead of below a temperature threshold. Similarly, step 106 may determine whether radar data is within a radar data range instead of above a radar threshold. For example, step 106 may focus on a temperature range from 0 to −10° C. or a radar data range from 10 to 20 dBZ. In embodiments, a temperature or radar threshold may further vary by climatological region and type of thunderstorm [DEIERLING 0033]).
Regarding claim 3, DEIERLING/ YOSHIKAWA discloses the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to claim 2, wherein the feature amount derivation unit derives vertical integrated echo intensity that is an integrated value of the echo intensity in the predetermined altitude range as a whole for each of the plurality of regions, and the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit derives the altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions using at least the vertical integrated echo intensity (the predictor field may include a vertically integrated ice mass. The vertically integrated ice mass is determined based on a summation of the radar-derived ice mass at each grid point in a vertical direction that exhibits radar echoes exceeding a threshold, starting at a level determined by the temperature threshold [DEIERLING 0037], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (a product of volume-average radar echo intensity and average cloud depth [DEIERLING 0011], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (the observation parameters 11 are parameters regarding weather observation data. The observation parameters 11 are parameters obtained from a weather sensor group 110. The observation parameters 11 include typically time-space distributions of echo intensity and Doppler velocity acquired from airport weather radars, altitude distributions of an aircraft location and temperature acquired from a flight data recorder or a radiosonde, and the like [YOSHIKAWA 0037], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, DEIERLING/ YOSHIKAWA discloses a lightning strike risk degree display system comprising: the lightning strike risk degree derivation device according to any one of claims 1 (Examiner’s note: See rejection of claim 1); and an image display device, wherein the image display device displays the altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions derived by the lightning strike risk degree derivation device in a three-dimensional manner (the first lightning potential for the inner outlook region and the second lightning potential for the outer outlook region may be displayed. For example, FIGS. 4 and 5 depict lightning alert icons 400 and 500 [DEIERLING 0063]); (the display unit 40 displays a result of identification of the lightning weather condition and a result of estimation of the lightning risk on a map [YOSHIKAWA 0067], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
DEIERLING discloses a method and system for determining and displaying lightning potential information. The method includes receiving a radar data and temperature data for a grid location. If the radar data is above a radar threshold and the temperature data is below a temperature threshold a predictor field is computed. One or more predictor fields may be used to determine a lightning potential. Fuzzy logic may be used to combine predictor fields into a lightning potential. A grid of lightning potential values may be used to determine the lightning potential at a target location, or to indicate the lightning potential in a region outside an inner outlook region including the target location. A display may further include future lightning potential information.
Furthermore, YOSHIKAWA discloses a lightning threat information-providing apparatus, a lightning threat information-providing method, and a program that provides information regarding a lightning threat such as a danger of a lightning strike to an aircraft. A lightning threat is estimated on the basis of the intermediate parameter which is the parameter regarding the physical quantity associated with the lightning occurrence and cannot be directly obtained from the observation data or the prediction data as well as the observation parameter, the prediction parameter, and the case data. Accurate information regarding the lightning threat can be thus provided to a user.
However, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither DEIERLING nor YOSHIKAWA anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 4, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit derives a lightning strike risk degree not including altitude information for each of the plurality of regions using the feature amount derived by the feature amount derivation unit and derives the altitude distribution of the lightning strike risk degree for each of the plurality of regions using the derived lightning strike risk degree and the altitude distribution of the air temperature, and the lightning strike risk degree derivation unit uses an algorithm derived using past lightning strike cases to derive the lightning strike risk degree not including the altitude information for each of the plurality of regions” as recited in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Similarly, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither DEIERLING nor YOSHIKAWA anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 7, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein a plurality of the meteorological observation devices exists in a range constituted by the plurality of regions, the air temperature derivation unit derives an air temperature, an atmospheric pressure and an altitude corresponding to each of the plurality of regions from each of the meteorological observation devices, and derives the altitude distribution of the air temperature for each of the plurality of regions using a hypsometric formula using air temperatures on a plurality of isobaric surfaces derived from a result of atmospheric analysis in addition to the derived air temperature, atmospheric pressure and altitude, and an air temperature, a pressure and an altitude corresponding to an arbitrary region among the plurality of regions are determined by the meteorological observation device corresponding to the arbitrary region, and the meteorological observation device corresponding to the arbitrary region is determined by Voronoi tessellation using a point at which the meteorological observation device is provided” as recited in claim 7.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khatwa et al. (US 2018/0074189 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a system configured to determine a reliability index for weather information received by a weather system. The reliability index may indicate a degree of confidence of the accuracy of the weather information. For example, a system may determine a weather product for each of one or more voxels of a plurality of voxels in a three-dimensional or four-dimensional volumetric buffer, and based on a combination of the weather product and the weather information, determine a reliability index for the weather product. The system may display a first visual representation of the weather product and a second visual representation of the corresponding reliability index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights