CTNF 19/257,257 CTNF 70850 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 1-20 are pending. They comprise of 3 groups: Method 1 : 1 -7, and System 1 : 8 -14, and Article (CRM 1 ): 15 -20. All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together. As of 07/01/25, independent claim 1 is as followed: A computer system for generating customized alerts for a user and mitigating impact of weather events, the system comprising: [I] one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by [II] one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: [1] receiving weather data from a database; [2] determining , from the weather data, weather conditions indicative of a predicted weather event beginning within a predefined time period; [3] receiving a location of the user; [4] receiving information relating to one or more protection policies of the user; [5] determining that the predicted weather event is relevant to the user based upon the location of the user and the information relating to the one or more protection policies of the user for protecting at least one of the user or property of the user; and [6] automatically initiating an action to mitigate a potential impact of the predicted weather event on the user responsive to the determination that the predicted weather event is relevant to the user. Note : for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[6] are added to the beginning of each step. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 : when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention , i.e., (1) process, (2) machine, (3) manufacture or product, or (4) composition of matter. Step 2A, Prong 1 : If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories , it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception , i.e., 1) law of nature, 2) natural phenomenon , and 3) abstract idea . and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include: (1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships , mathematical formulas or equations , and mathematical calculations ; (2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). (3) Certain methods of organizing human activities . (i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations ); (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). >For instance, in Alice Corp . ( Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “ intermediated settlement ” was a fundamental economic practice , which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities , which is an abstract idea. (1) Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? (2) Step 2A, Prong 2: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B. (3) Step 2B : Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Step 1 : In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20: Claim categories : System 1 (machine): 1 -7, and Method 1 (machine): 8 -14, and Non-transitory CRS media 1 (product): 15 -20. Analysis of Step 1 : method: claims 8 -14 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for managing risk from potential abnormal weather by receiving weather data, predicting weather condition for abnormal condition, receiving information about a location of a user, receiving information about user’s protection policies, determining relevancy of the predicted weather condition to the user, and initiate action to mitigate potential impact of the predicted weather to the user. (Step 1:Yes). Machine : claims 1-7 are directed to a system comprising a processor, and memory having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for managing risk from potential abnormal weather by receiving weather data, predicting weather condition for abnormal condition, receiving information about a location of a user, receiving information about user’s protection policies, determining relevancy of the predicted weather condition to the user, and initiate action to mitigate potential impact of the predicted weather to the user. (Step 1:Yes). Non-transitory CRS media 1 (product): 15 -20 are directed to an article comprising computer instructions for carrying out a series of steps or acts, for managing risk from potential abnormal weather by receiving weather data, predicting weather condition for abnormal condition, receiving information about a location of a user, receiving information about user’s protection policies, determining relevancy of the predicted weather condition to the user, and initiate action to mitigate potential impact of the predicted weather to the user. (Step 1:Yes). Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . A. Step 2A, Prong One : Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for managing risk due to abnormal weather conditions by collecting weather condition at customer’s location who has a protection policy, using a weather-risk model to determine the risk level of weather’s impact to the customer and provide action to mitigate to the customer by alerting the customer of the danger, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for managing risk in assisting a customer mitigate potential risks and financial loss due to abnormal condition, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities , which is an abstract idea. (ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts ; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations ); Furthermore, independent claims 1 , 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation a weather condition for potential abnormal condition using a risk model and informs the customer of potential risk, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “ Mental Processes ” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation , judgment, and opinion. (2) Mental processes —concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). B. Step 2A, Prong Two : The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for managing risk from potential abnormal weather by receiving weather data, predicting weather condition for abnormal condition, receiving information about a location of a user, receiving information about user’s protection policies, determining relevancy of the predicted weather condition to the user, and initiate action to mitigate potential impact of the predicted weather to the user, by carrying out steps of: The claims recites the additional elements of: Steps: Types [1] receive weather data (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step. [2] determine condition … (data) Mental step/analysis/prediction model/prediction. [3] receive location of user (data) Data gathering, IE-SA. [4] receive information policies of user. Data gathering, IE-SA. [5]determine relevance weather-user. Mental step/analysis/relationship. [6] initiate an action to reduce impact. Mental/business activity. Steps [1], [3], and [4] are data gathering which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps. Steps [2], [5], and [6] are steps for evaluating/determining relevancy of the abnormal weather to the location of the user for potential risk and initiate to reduce the risk. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing potential weather risk to a user and provides well known and conventional solution to reduce risk. The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). C. Step 2B: The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[6] above. Steps [1], [3], and [4] are data gathering which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps. Steps [2], [5], and [6] are steps for evaluating/determining relevancy of the abnormal weather to the location of the user for potential risk and initiate to reduce the risk. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing potential weather risk to a user and provides well known and conventional solution to reduce risk. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements , steps [2], [5], [6], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC . For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the mitigating action, i.e. notification to the user, these further limit the abstract idea of the mitigation actions, without including : (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”. As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the weather prediction analysis, i.e. account usage, this further limits the abstract idea of the analyzed weather, and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”. As for dep. claims 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the protection policies, address of a building, this further limits the abstract idea of the risk analysis options/protection policies, without including : (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”. As for dep. claims 6-7 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the mitigating action, i.e. various notification features, these further limit the abstract idea of the mitigation actions, without including : (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 6-7 are considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . step 2B : NO Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn , 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (g) Some teaching , suggestion , or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries . Claims 1 -7 (system), 8 -14 (method), and 15 -20 (article 1 ) are rejected under 35 pre-AIA U.S.C. 103(a) as being un-patentable over: Name Publication (1) CN 111.723.994 and (2) KOGER ET AL. US 2017/0.039.307. As for independent claims 1, 8 and 15 , CN 111.723.994 teaches a method for A computer system for generating customized alerts for a user and mitigating impact of weather events, the system comprising: [I] one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by [II] one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: PNG media_image1.png 220 378 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 296 400 media_image2.png Greyscale [1] receiving weather data from a database; PNG media_image3.png 232 668 media_image3.png Greyscale [2] determining , from the weather data, weather conditions indicative of a predicted weather event beginning within a predefined time period; {see above, “predicted risk” due to “predicted risk weather.” [3] receiving a location of the user; {see above, “target owner end.” “avoid risk in advance”} [4] receiving information relating to one or more protection policies of the user; {see “property insurance (vehicle insurance)” [5] determining that the predicted weather event is relevant to the user based upon the location of the user and the information relating to the one or more protection policies of the user for protecting at least one of the user or property of the user; and {see above, “generating pre-warning information according to the predicted risk vehicle” and “pushing the pre-warning information to the corresponding target owner end.”} [6] automatically initiating an action to mitigate a potential impact of the predicted weather event on the user responsive to the determination that the predicted weather event is relevant to the user. {see above “making the majority of people avoid risk in advance; reducing various loss, improving customer’s satisfaction, reducing the passenger cost, cost of claim loss and cost”} CN 111.723.994 fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses the step of receiving a location of the user. KOGER ET AL. is cited to teach the warning of insured properties and other stakeholders in a geographic area that is predicted to be affected, see [0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to application was filed to modify the system of CN 111.723.994 to include the step of receiving a location of the user in warning area as taught by KOGER ET AL. for warning of potential danger of being affected. Regarding dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 9 (part of 8 above) and respective 16 (part of 15 above), which deals with a generated notification of the predicted weather event, this is taught in CN 111.723.994 cited above or KOGER ET AL. Fig. 3, 68 “warnings” and respective [0054…significant weather event] Regarding dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 9 (part of 10 above), which deals with displaying the notification to the user a length of time, this is taught in CN 111.723.994, as cited above, “generating pre-warning information according to the predicted risk…disaster weather..” so that the user can avoid the danger. As for the length of time, this is a function of the magnitude of the disaster which affects the “pre-warning” time to allow the user to avoid the danger. This is also taught in KOGER ET AL. [0054] and Fig. 3. PNG media_image4.png 356 500 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 11 (part of 10 above) and respective dep. claim 17 (part of 15 above), which deals with determining the weather condition at a current location, this is taught in KOGER ET AL. [0054]-[0055] and Fig. 3, steps 54, 56, 60, 64 and 68. Regarding dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 12 (part of 10 above) and respective dep. claim 18 (part of 15 above), which deals with a feature of the protection policies, an address of a building, this is taught in CN 111.723.994, cited portion, which deals with property insurance, vehicle insurance, etc., which would normally requires an address of the protected property. This is also taught in KOGER ET AL. , Fig. 3, step 54 “collect real property data” which would require an address of the protected property. PNG media_image3.png 232 668 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 13 (part of 10 above) and respective dep. claim 19 (part of 15 above), which deals with displaying the notification to the user, this is taught in KOGER ET AL. Fig. 6. PNG media_image5.png 504 520 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 14 (part of 10 above) and respective dep. claim 20 (part of 15 above), which deals with displaying the notification to the user, this is taught in KOGER ET AL. Fig. 6., Fig. 3, 64, and [0054]-[0055]. PNG media_image4.png 356 500 media_image4.png Greyscale No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET. 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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 4 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 5 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 6 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 7 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 8 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 10 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 11 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 19/257,257 Page 12 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights