DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, Claims 1-7 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claims 8-13 recite a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claims 14-20 recite a non-transitory, computer readable medium and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites
A system comprising:
a memory storing processor-executable program code; and
a processor to execute the processor-executable program code in order to cause the processor to:
determine, for a calculation of a predicted value specified by a recursive equation, an equivalent representation of the predicted value based on a cumulative sum;
determine a trend component for the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation;
decompose the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation into the trend component and a cyclic component;
generate a visualization for a set of time series data expressed by the decomposition, the generated visualization including visual representations of the trend component and the cyclic component of the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation,
display the generated visualization via a display device; and
executing an action of a second system, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation.
The above underlined limitations of determining an equivalent equation based on a cumulative sum; determining a trend component for a predicted value; decomposing the predicted value into the trend and a cyclic component; and generating a visualization of the result of the decomposition amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “determine”, “determine”, “decompose”, and “generate” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually deriving an equivalent mathematical representation based on a cumulative sum of a recursive equation such as determining Equation 3 from Equation 2 as disclosed in paragraphs [0041-0043 and 0059]; determining a trend component using Equations 4 and 5 as disclosed in paragraphs [0046-0048 and 0060]; decomposing the equivalent representation using Equations 6-8 as disclosed in paragraphs [0052-0055 and 0061]; and graphing the decomposition result using pen and paper. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.A which states “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as an example of a claim that recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a memory storing processor-executable program code; a processor to execute the processor-executable program code in order to cause the processor to; display the generated visualization via a display device; and executing an action of a second system, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation. However, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, and “a display device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for executing the instructions; and as a generic computer component for displaying) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. At most, the additional element of “display the generated visualization via a display device” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment that includes a display device for displaying the result of the abstract idea. The additional elements of “executing an action of a second system, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by using the result of the abstract idea to perform an action of a system. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 8 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, and “a display device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing instructions; as a generic computer component for executing the instructions; and as a generic computer component for displaying) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. At most, the additional element of “display the generated visualization via a display device” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment that includes a display device for displaying the result of the abstract idea. The additional elements of “executing an action of a second system, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by using the result of the abstract idea to perform an action of a system. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 9-13 recites the same abstract idea as claim 8 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 9 recites further details of the abstract idea of the cumulative sum “wherein the cumulative sum starts from a first predicted data point.” Claim 10 recites further details of the abstract idea of the trend component “wherein the trend component has a constant amplitude over time”. Claim 11 recites further details of the abstract idea of the trend component “wherein a slope for the trend component is one of a constant, strictly increasing value, and a strictly decreasing value.” Claim 12 recites further details of the abstract idea of the trend component and the cyclic component “wherein the trend component and the cyclic component are expressed in a same value space.” Claim 13 recites further details of the abstract idea of the visualization “wherein the generated visualization includes an indication of the determined trend component represented as at least one of a semantic description and a graphical representation” and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, claims 9-13 do not recite additional elements. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
determining, for a calculation of a predicted value specified by a recursive equation, an equivalent representation of the predicted value based on a cumulative sum;
determining a trend component for the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation;
decomposing the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation into the trend component and a cyclic component;
generating a visualization for a set of time series data expressed by the decomposition the generated visualization including visual representations of the trend component and the cyclic component of the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation;
displaying the generated visualization via a display device; and
executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation.
The above underlined limitations of determining an equivalent equation based on a cumulative sum; determining a trend component for a predicted value; decomposing the predicted value into the rend and a cyclic component; and generating a visualization of the result of the decomposition amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “determining”, “determining”, “decomposing” and “generating” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses manually deriving an equivalent mathematical representation based on a cumulative sum of a recursive equation such as determining Equation 3 from Equation 2 as disclosed in paragraphs [0041-0043 and 0059]; determining a trend component using Equations 4 and 5 as disclosed in paragraphs [0046-0048 and 0060]; decomposing the equivalent representation using Equations 6-8 as disclosed in paragraphs [0052-0055 and 0061]; and graphing the decomposition result using pen and paper. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.A which states “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as an example of a claim that recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: displaying the generated visualization via a display device; and executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation. However, the additional element “a display device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. At most, the additional element of “display the generated visualization via a display device” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment that includes a display device for displaying the result of the abstract idea. The additional elements of “executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by using the result of the abstract idea to perform an action of a system. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a display device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) for more information. At most, the additional element of “display the generated visualization via a display device” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment that includes a display device for displaying the result of the abstract idea. The additional elements of “executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by using the result of the abstract idea to perform an action of a system. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7, they recite the same limitations as the system of claims 9-13 respectively. Claims 9-13 analysis applies equally to claims 2-5 and 7 respectively in addition to claim 1 analysis.
Regarding claim 6, it recites further details of the abstract idea. In particular, claim 6 recites further details of the value space for the trend component and the cyclic component “wherein the value space for the trend component and the cyclic component is the same for the set of time series data” and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B, claim 6 does not recite additional elements. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 14-18 and 20, they are directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by the system of claims 8-13 respectively. All the instructions stored in the non-transitory, computer readable medium claims 14-18 and 20 would be executed by the system of claims 8-13 respectively. Claims 8-13 analysis applies equally to claims 14-18 and 20 respectively.
Regarding claim 19, it is directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions to perform the method of claim 6. All the instructions stored in the non-transitory, computer readable medium claim 19 would be performed by the method of claim 6. Claim 6 analysis applies equally to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon further consideration, examiner is persuaded and adopts Applicant’s arguments (see remarks page 19 middle submitted on 12/18/2025) that the cumulative sum equation in paragraph [0039] of Qingsong relates to extracting the trend component and is not an equivalent representation of the predicted value based on a cumulative sum. Therefore, none of the prior art references cited explicitly teach or suggest, taken alone or in combination, “determining, for a calculation of a predicted value specified by a recursive equation, an equivalent representation of the predicted value based on a cumulative sum” as required in claims 1, 8 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-17, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
1.) under step 2A prong One, the claims are not directed to a mental process because the claims recite “displaying the generated visualization via a display device” which also does not recite a mathematical concept.
Response: Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that the features of “displaying the generated visualization via a display device” does not recite a mathematical concept and a mental step. However, the claims are still directed to recite a mental process because claims can still recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See 2106.04(a)(2) III.C for more information.
2.) under step 2A prong 2, the features of “generating a visualization for a set of time series data expressed by the decomposition, the generated visualization including visual representations of the trend component and the cyclic component of the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation”; “displaying the generated visualization via a display device”; and “executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” provides a useful, technological improvement and application. The improved visualization, as compared to the initial or original recursive equation representation for the predicted value, generated in accordance with amended claim 1 is based on the equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation comprising a cumulative sum of the determined trend component and a cyclic component, as recited in amended claim 1. Further, Applicant cited Figs. 6-7 and corresponding description for a discussion of the alleged improved visualization.
Response: Examiner agrees in part. Examiner agrees that “The improved visualization, as compared to the initial or original recursive equation representation for the predicted value, generated in accordance with amended claim 1 is based on the equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation comprising a cumulative sum of the determined trend component and a cyclic component”. Therefore, any alleged improvement of “improved visualization” is a direct result and a natural consequence of the abstract idea. Furthermore, as discussed above, the step of “generating a visualization for a set of time series data expressed by the decomposition, the generated visualization including visual representations of the trend component and the cyclic component of the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation” is a mental step that can be performed practically and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.A which states “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as an example of a claim that recites a mental process. Therefore, any alleged improvement of “improved visualization” is a direct result and a natural consequence of the abstract idea. For the sake of argument, even if the step of “generating a visualization …”, is not considered as part of the abstract idea, the alleged improved visualization is still a is a direct result and a natural consequence of the abstract of “determining, for a calculation of a predicted value specified by a recursive equation, an equivalent representation of the predicted value based on a cumulative sum” and “the decomposing the determined equivalent representation of the predicted value specified by the recursive equation into the trend component and a cyclic component” step. See at least paragraphs [0036, 0050 and 0053] which reads
[0036] In some aspects, a solution disclosed by the present disclosure includes, in some embodiments, representing a recursive equation for a prediction as an equivalent equation or expression that highlights, for example, a trend and a cyclic pattern that model the original time series instead of component(s) that model a variation of the time series. In some embodiments, the components specified in the equivalent equation or expression ( e.g., a trend and a cyclic pattern) are in the same value space as the original time series.
[0050] Based on the foregoing, the prediction equation (e.g., equation 3) to calculate a predicted value at t, which breaks to recursivity in eq. (2), can be rewritten to separate the trend component,
b
t
, from the cyclic component
s
t
, as outlined in FIG. 10. As shown at 1005 in FIG. 10, the trend is added and removed to maintain the value of the equation (i.e., an equivalent formula) to separate the expression into a trend component and a cyclic component. The result is an expression of the predicted value as two separate components, one that corresponds to the trend (
b
t
) and one that corresponds to the cycle (
s
t
).
[0053] Accordingly, we have demonstrated a process to separate the trend component and the cycle component from the predicted data series 1115. The predicted data series obtained in this manner might be exposed to the user via a visualization in terms that a user can readily comprehend and understand.
The alleged improved visualization is only possible because the recursive equation (Equation 2) is expressed/rewritten as a cumulative sum expression (Equation 3) and decomposing the equivalent representation into the trend component and the cyclic component such that the predicted data is expressed as two separate components. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.”
Furthermore, the additional element of “displaying the generated visualization via a display device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a display device for displaying a result of the abstract idea) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea or merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and the display device is merely being used for its normal purpose. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The additional element of “executing an action of a second system to adjust a production, in response to the predicted value for the determined equivalent representation specified by the recursive equation being predicted to vary as indicated by the cyclic component for the determined equivalent representation” is also merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by using the result of the abstract idea to perform an action of a system. See MPEP 2106.05(h) for more information. This limitation is recited a high level of generality to the judicial exception (i.e., no specific recitation of the details of the second system and how the production is adjusted) which is indicative that an inventive concept under step 2B is not present. “A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) for more information.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 18-20, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-5767