DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 4/6/20226. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2024 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments on pages 20-23 of the Remarks dated 4/6/2026, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants have canceled the modifying step and several limitations in each of the independent claims: 1, 7, and 15 and thus broaden the claim limitations. Please see the response below.
As cited before, the MPEP 2106.04(I) states, “even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. … Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original). Similarly, as stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), discussing the improvements consideration states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” A new or improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions.
The steps cited in the independent claims 1, 7, and 15 are mental evaluations or judgements of adding natural language queries and answers to a knowledge base system which can be performed in a human mind with the use of pen and paper. In addition, it has been well practiced in the technological art that questions and answers relating to time or periods are generated and stored especially in knowledge bases to serve users, e.g., weather of the current week, items that students need the most prior to schools start etc. Thus, modifying or adding needed questions/assets to a knowledge base is mentally performable. Therefore, the steps fall within the mental processes grouping. Even if performing the steps above is mentally/manually time consuming, "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible". (Citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept)). And thus, the steps fall within the mental processes grouping which recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-20 fall within the statutory category of a process and an apparatus or system.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites a Judicial Exception.
Claim 1 recites
“constructing, for a first query classification, a query time series, the query time series comprising a first plurality of data points, each data point in the first plurality of data points comprising an amount of natural language queries received per unit of time, wherein each of the natural language queries is classified into the first query classification, wherein each of the natural language queries comprises a request for
information from a set of knowledge assets; comprises a request for information from a set of knowledge assets;
constructing, for a first asset classification, a topic time series, the topic time series comprising a second plurality of data points, each data point in the second plurality of data points comprising an amount of knowledge assets added to the set of knowledge assets per unit of time wherein each of the knowledge assets is classified into the first asset classification”.
In a BRI, the constructing steps are mental evaluations or judgements of adding natural language queries and answers to a knowledge base system which can be performed in a human mind with the use of pen and paper. It has been well practiced in the technological art that questions and answers relating to time or periods are generated and stored especially in knowledge bases to serve users, e.g., weather of the current week, items that students need the most prior to schools start etc. Thus, modifying or adding needed assets is mentally performable. And therefore, the steps fall within the mental processes grouping. Even if performing the steps above is mentally/manually time consuming, "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible". (Citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept)). And thus, the steps fall within the mental processes grouping which recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As stated in the PTAB decision, both of the “constructing” steps and the “generating” steps recite mental processes. While the final two generating limitations have been amended on 3/1/2024 to recite further details of the variables and specifics of the content of the “decision tree” and “schedule”, these limitations still appear to recite mental processes since under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. One can still mentally generate the claimed decision tree and mentally generate the claimed schedule – the same as PTAB found.
In addition, the step: “modelling”, “a fitting of the query time series and the topic time series to a forecasting model” is a long-existing modeling technique that has been used in forecasting various problems and generally such modeling can be done manually in a non-automated fashion. Accordingly, this claimed “modelling” limitation appears to recite a mentally performable process, as one can mentally with pen and paper and thus, are mental processes as an evaluation or judgement, mathematical relationships/concepts.
As noted in the PTAB decision dated 2/2/2024, page 9, last paragraph, even if performing this mentally/manually is time consuming, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible”. (Citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept)).
Each claimed step can be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, and thus the steps fall within the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts, thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Independent claims 7 and 15 recite limitations of commensurate scope. For the reasons stated above for claim 1, claims 7 and 15 also recite mental processes, mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements "A computer usable program product comprising one or more computer readable storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices, the stored program instructions being executable by a set of one or more processors to cause the set of one or more processors to perform operations," which are high-level recitation of generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Thus, none of these additional elements would render the claim eligible. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claims as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
The claim recites generic computer components (e.g., "A computer usable program product comprising one or more computer readable storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices, the stored program instructions being executable by a set of one or more processors to cause the set of one or more processors to perform operations”, and "A computer system comprising a knowledge base, one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and one or more computer readable storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, the stored program instructions when executed by the at least one of the one or more processors to cause operations” (in claims 7 and 15) performing generic computing functions or generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the recited generic computing functions or components do not provide significantly more and the claim as a whole does not change the conclusion. In addition, based on the forecasting results, certain assets are needed/be used in the future time/seasons, said assets are added in the knowledge base/knowledge assets. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claimed limitations recited above are abstract ideas under mental processes
and the claims 1, 7 and 15 are ineligible.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite steps of “classifying, using a Natural Language Understanding model, a first natural language query into the first query classification”; “classifying, using a Natural Language Understanding model, a first knowledge asset into the first asset classification”, “generating, for a natural language query in the first query classification, an over-specified query, the over-specified query specifying a subset of information requested by the natural language query; and generating, responsive to determining that a first result of applying the natural language query to the set of knowledge assets and a second result of applying the over-specified query to the set of knowledge assets are within a threshold similarity to each other, a revised schedule, the revised schedule forecasting a time at which a knowledge asset identified using the similarity between the over-specified query and the natural language query should be added to the set of knowledge assets”, “generating, for a natural language query in the first query classification, an under- specified query, the under-specified query specifying a superset of information requested by the natural language query; and generating, responsive to determining that a first result of applying the natural language query to the set of knowledge assets and a second result of applying the under-specified query to the set of knowledge assets are within a threshold similarity to each other, a revised schedule, the revised schedule forecasting a time at which a knowledge asset identified using the similarity between the under-specified query and the natural language query should be added to the set of knowledge assets”.
Said claims can be performed using human mental evaluation or judgement, and fall into the abstract idea of a mental process, similar to the independent claims. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Malley (US 12094018) teaches at col. 19:12-19: the first prompt and a subsequent prompt/response are may be combined to create a prompt pairing, and for example, may be referred to as a “prompt/response pairing,” simply a “prompt/rejection,” a “1.sup.st prompt/2.sup.nd prompt,” and/or the like. In various non-limiting embodiments, the pairing is simply the “prompt.”
Chen et al. (US 8126839) teaches at col. 6:22-24: boosted trees are a series of decision trees, which may be denoted by h.sub.i(x). A prediction function may be based on these decision trees.
Koh (US 20170178229) teaches in para. 21: the actual volume data 2 and client historical volume data 1 act as input into the forecasting module 110, i.e. for applying a time series analysis model for volume forecasting using the statistical module.
Cox (US 20170235894) teaches in para. 244: “Model selection may include models that remove seasonal and irregular variations in observable values. Body Mass Index (BMI) may be expected to increase in the winter and decrease in the summer, for example, while we do not expect seasonal variations in blood pressure. Trend slope and confidence levels and projections for future measurements can be calculated using a wide range of mathematical models. Available models for trend analysis include least squares fit model, iteratively weighted least squares model, generalized linear model (GLM), and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models”.
Anderson et al. (US 20150317589) teaches at para. 168: various ML models such as, for example, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), tree classification, Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), Support Vector Regression (SVR) and time series methods such as variants of SARIMA, can be deployed to forecast the load profile. In this exemplary application, each of these models was tested and the SVR model provided the best load forecasting results. Pan (US 20140114556) teaches at para. 34-35: ARIMA forecasting model and decision trees.
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 LINH BLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-4106. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/LINH BLACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2163 7/16/2026
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights