DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 15, and 17 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
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, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a medium storing a program (manufacture = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
transforming the non-linear multidimensional time series data into an attractor containing a plurality of points, each of the plurality of points representing the values of the sets of time series data at a time included in the first period; generating first Betti number sequence data according to a shape of the attractor by applying a persistent homology process on the attractor representing a relationship between a radius of sphere centering each point contained in the attractor and a Betti number, wherein the first Betti number sequence data reflects features of the sets of time series data acquired (mathematical concepts)
comparing the first Betti number sequence data with second Betti number sequence data that is generated for a second period that is a predetermined time before the first period to acquire a first distance… wherein for each time period, the comparing further includes comparing a respective first distance with the first Betti number sequence data of a current time period and the second Betti number sequence data of a preceding time period; and after the predetermined end point is reached, acquiring a state change based on the at least one of respective first distances and a predetermined value (mental concepts)
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations and mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations “transforming the non-linear multidimensional time series data into an attractor containing a plurality of points, each of the plurality of points representing the values of the sets of time series data at a time included in the first period”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, set operations are mathematical concepts. See for example in the specification:
'[0026]… When the time series data on each item is acquired at discrete times, an attractor may be generated not from a set of all (xi, yi and zi) in the period of the slide window but a set containing (xi, yi and zi at n intervals (n=1, 2, 3... [0027]… An attractor reflects features of the original multidimensional time series data and an analogous relationship among attractors is equivalent to an analogous relationship among sets of original multidimensional time series data… [0062]… attractor… generated from the data'.
As to the limitations “generating first Betti number sequence data according to a shape of the attractor by applying a persistent homology process on the attractor, wherein the first Betti number sequence data represents a relationship between a radius of sphere centering each point contained in the attractor and a Betti number, wherein the first Betti number sequence data reflects features of the sets of time series data acquired”, they are counting and are used similarly to mathematically generating number sequences representing mathematical relationships. The claimed invention further reads “2… wherein the persistent homology process is a process of counting a Betti number in a case where radii of spheres each centering each point contained in the attractor are increased over time”. Furthermore, the limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts. See also for example in the specification:
"[0042]… execution of the persistent homology process enables the Betti number sequence to reflect features of the original multidimensional time series data. A Betti number sequence is generated for each slide window… [0089] The Betti number sequence data that is generated… reflects the features of original multiple sets of time series data and thus accuracy of classifying a state can be improved”.
These ideas are similar to the basic concept of manipulating information/data using mathematical relationships, e.g., converting numerical representation in Gottschalk v. Benson2 (Benson hereinafter), which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea.
As to the limitations “comparing the first Betti number sequence data with second Betti number sequence data that is generated for a second period that is a predetermined time before the first period to acquire a first distance… wherein for each time period, the comparing further includes comparing a respective first distance with the first Betti number sequence data of a current time period and the second Betti number sequence data of a preceding time period", comparisons are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user evaluating information (evaluations, judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The Examiner notes that the “comparing" limitation is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification as "comparison". The Examiner also notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about how the "acquiring" is performed.
As to the limitations "acquiring a state change based on the at least one of respective first distances and a predetermined value", choices are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user evaluating information (evaluations, judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about how the "acquiring a state change" is performed. The specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0092]… sensing a change in the state represented by the multiple sets of time series data based on comparison between the generated Betti number sequence data and Betti number sequence data that is generated for multiple sets of time series data a given time before'.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the additional element computer-readable recording medium.
As to the limitations "state classifying", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations "acquiring non-linear multidimensional time series data that includes values of sets of time series data about biological data, natural environment data or data that is measured", they appear to be analogous to “mere data gathering”. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. As to the limitations “displaying an information to a user about the acquired state change of biological data, natural environment data or data that is measured by sensors during the first period”, they are considered generic displaying. Data gathering and displaying have not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations “acquiring… by sensors at each of times included in a first period with one or more sensors" and "iteratively repeating the acquiring, the transforming, the generating, and the comparing for each of a plurality of sequential time periods, after each iteration, advancing a time window to define a next time period, until a predetermined end point is reached"; these limitations represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the additional element computer-readable recording medium. It is recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See MPEP 2106.05 Particular Machine (b). The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added): "[0086]… information processing device 1 is computer device". The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the intended use limitations remain intended use even upon reconsideration, because no actual classification is performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as just “apply it” merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As to the limitations "acquiring… by sensors at each of times included in a first period with one or more sensors", they are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic sensor functions routinely used in sensor applications. The "sensors" are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are "sensors") that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. The specification reads:
"[0004]… multidimensional time series data that is collected by sensors… [0021]… The time series data is, for example, biological data (time series data of the heart rate, brain waves, pulses, body temperature, or the like), data that is measured by sensors (time series data of a gyro sensor, acceleration sensor, geomagnetic sensor, or the like)… [0043] Calculation for persistent homology is a topological method and has been used for analysis of a structure of a static object that is represented by a set of points (for example, protein, a molecular crystal, a sensor network or the like)".
As to the limitations "iteratively repeating the acquiring, the transforming, the generating, and the comparing for each of a plurality of sequential time periods, after each iteration, advancing a time window to define a next time period, until a predetermined end point is reached", see MPEP 2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)(II): 'Performing repetitive calculations, Flook3… (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)'.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 7 and 8 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of claim 8 are rejected below:
Independent claim 8, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements memory and processor, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more" “significantly more”.
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to abstract ideas as their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations “4… on condition that the second distance is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, detecting that the state of the object in the first period is abnormal”, detecting data changes are mathematical abstract ideas, comparisons are mathematical relationships. The application description reads:
"[0003] Identifying the states of an object based on multidimensional time series data is practiced generally…
[0005] In a subspace method, an orthogonal basis of a subspace representing features by low dimensionality is generated in each condition from the multidimensional time series data and, based on the similarity between the orthogonal basis and the input multidimensional time series data, the state that is represented by the input multidimensional time series data is classified…
[0011]… Analysis performed on such multidimensional time series data… may cause false classification of a state…
[0050]… as a change can be sensed according to a distance, the information of time that is stored in the sensing data storage 121 represents the time at which a change is sensed…
[0051]… it is possible to appropriately sense a change in multidimensional time series data with a possibility that false sensing may occur when the related technology is used and thus improve accuracy of sensing a change…
[0092] The classifying the state represented by the multiple sets of time series data may include (c1) sensing a change in the state represented by the multiple sets of time series data based on comparison between the generated Betti number sequence data and Betti number sequence data that is generated for multiple sets of time series data a given time before".
As to the limitations “4… acquiring third Betti number sequence data for a third period wherein a state of the object in the third period is normal, acquiring second distance between the first Betti number sequence data and the third Betti number sequence data”, the limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts. They are similar to mathematically generating number sequences representing mathematical relationships. See also for example in the specification:
"[0089] The Betti number sequence data that is generated… reflects the features of original multiple sets of time series data and thus accuracy of classifying a state can be improved”.
These ideas are similar to the basic concept of manipulating information/data using mathematical relationships, e.g., converting numerical representation in Benson, which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea.
As to the limitations “13/15/17… wherein generating the first Betti number sequence data includes: generating barcode data for each hole dimension by applying the persistent homology process on the attractor, wherein the barcode data indicates a birth radius and a death radius for each hole dimension; and generating the first Betti number sequence data from the barcode data, wherein the first Betti number sequence data represents an interval between the birth radius and the death radius and a Betti number representing a number of holes for each hole dimension”, these ideas of generating data are similar to the basic concept of manipulating information/data using mathematical relationships, e.g., converting numerical representation in Benson, which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two: Claims 9-11 further recite "wherein each of times is each discrete time", it appears to be analogous to “mere data gathering”. These claim limitations further the data gathering of their independent claims (see for example in the specification "[0026]… When the time series data on each item is acquired at discrete times"). Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, no additional elements even upon reconsideration are provided that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination and therefore the claims do not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims recite data gathering at a high level of generality; and therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 15, and 17 are allowed over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
none of the prior art of record either alone or in combination disclose
claims 1, 7, and 8, "… generat(ing/e) first Betti number sequence data according to a shape of the attractor by applying a persistent homology process on the attractor, wherein the first Betti number sequence data represents a relationship between a radius of sphere centering each point contained in the attractor and a Betti number, wherein the first Betti number sequence data reflects features of the sets of time series data acquired; compar(ing/e) the first Betti number sequence data with second Betti number sequence data that is generated for a second period that is a predetermined time before the first period (to acquire a first distance)…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Claim rejections remain. Applicant argues (see page 10, 1st paragraph to page 11, next to last paragraph; page 12, 2nd paragraph):
‘… The shift from "calculating" to "comparing... to acquire a first distance" removes the claims from being a "mathematical concept" by focusing on a functional comparison rather than the generation of a number.
Further, this specific sequence of steps is not a mere abstract calculation, but implements a sliding window mechanism for real-time monitoring of dynamic transitions in physical sensor data. As stated, e.g., in paragraph [0101] of the As-filed Specification, this specific combination improves the "accuracy of classifying a state based on multidimensional time series data" in non- linear systems where traditional linear methods fail. In particular, traditional linear methods (like the subspace method) fail for non-linear chaos data and this specific iterative topology-based loop provides a technical solution to the problem of false classification. Contrary to the assertion on page 6 of the Office action, the claims are directed to a specialized diagnostic or monitoring tool and is an improvement to the technology of state classification, not a mere improvement to a mathematical formula.
In other words, the claims recite a process that overcomes a specific technical failure of the prior art (e.g., the subspace method and invariant analysis) in classifying non-linear chaos data . By utilizing a specific topological loop, the claims improves the accuracy of sensing a change in multidimensional time series data where linear methods produce false classifications. The iteration is not a "generic computer function" but a specific control flow that advances a time window to define a next time period based on a comparison to the preceding period. This is a functional implementation of a monitoring system, not a mere mathematical calculation. The data is not abstract "information" but is acquired via physical sensors (e.g., biological, natural environment, or gyro/acceleration sensors). The "state change" being calculated reflects a physical transition in the object being monitored (such as a transition from normal to abnormal biological states).
Additionally, the Examiner currently characterizes the sensor limitations as "mere data gathering". However, the sensors are not just providing "information" but provide the physical input for a specialized transformation into an attractor, a step the Examiner acknowledges is novel and non-obvious
… unlike the repetitive calculations in Flook, noted on page 6 of the Office Action, the recited iteration uses a sliding window to define a next time period based on the specific topological features of the preceding period, enabling the detection of state changes in chaotic systems where static calculations fail'
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]… II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD… an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology’. The MPEP also reads: '2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
‘2106.05(f) [R-10.2019]… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more'.
'2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019] Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr... Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…
Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include…
vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power”).
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "acquiring… by sensors at each of times included in a first period with one or more sensors", they are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic sensor functions routinely used in sensor applications. The "sensors" are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are "sensors") that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) supra.
As to any argued improvements, the claimed invention does not realize any improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field (underline emphasis added). Improved abstract ideas are species of the genus abstract idea. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. (See MPEP 2106.05(a) supra). As to the limitations "acquiring a state change based on the at least one of respective first distances and a predetermined value", choices are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user evaluating information (evaluations, judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the additional element "state classifying" of the preambles, it is no more than intended use. The claimed invention falls short of actual classification performed in the body of the claim. (See MPEP 2106.05(h) supra).
Applicant further argues, (see page 11, last paragraph to page 12, 1st paragraph):
‘… claims are analogous to Example 47, Claim 3. The "drop packets" action in Claim 3 in Example 47 is analogous to the "iterative advancement of the time window" and "calculating a state change" of the amended claims, as both use a mathematical output to control the behavior of a technical system. Just as Claim 3 in Example 47 integrates an AI output into a technical application (network intrusion detection via dropping packets), the present claims integrate the topological output (Betti number sequences) into a specific, iterative monitoring application to achieve a technical improvement in state sensing accuracy…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because claims do not read "control the behavior of a technical system”, as argued.
Applicant further argues, (see page 12, 3rd to last paragraphs):
‘… Examiner has already indicated that the pending claims are allowable over the prior art. This serves as defacto evidence that the "ordered combination" of persistent homology and the specific iterative sliding window comparison logic is "unconventional" and "not well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the technical field. This unconventional combination provides the required "significantly more" to ensure eligibility under Step 2B.
Request for TQAS Consultation
Given that the claims are admittedly novel and non-obvious, and are directed to the application of persistent homology to non-linear sensor data, a sophisticated technical field addressed in the recent August 2025 USPTO AI Memorandum, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner consult with a Technical Quality Assurance Specialist (TQAS)…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because novel or non-obvious ('"unconventional" and "not well-understood, routine, or conventional"', as argued) abstract ideas are abstract ideas. Novel or non-obvious abstract ideas are species of the genus abstract idea. In the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance4, “novelty” or “non-obviousness” of an abstract idea do not match any of the considerations discussed for determining whether a claim with additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. When recited in a claim with an abstract idea, “novelty” or “non-obviousness” of an abstract idea do not qualify a limitation as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)
3 Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199
4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 4/Monday, January 7, 2019 /Notices