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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 4 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final rejection with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 10-12 that the claim limitations do not fall in a mental process abstract idea grouping.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claimed invention recites the steps of generating a value, extracting features, predicting values, computing values, and generating an explanation. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user is able to make a prediction without the use of a computer. A user is also able to compute values and generate an explanation without the use of a computer. The claimed invention is merely using additional elements such as general-purpose configurations as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues on page 13
Taken together, these limitations define a specific technological process for explaining a forecast by selectively modifying time series inputs, applying a trained model, and deriving explanation values from the resulting forecast differential. That is not a mental process. A human mind cannot practically perform the claimed sequence of model training
Examiner respectfully disagrees
Model training corresponds to picking the best variables for a model. The claims do not go into details regarding the training such as providing technical steps. A user is able to train a model without the use of a computer. In addition, explaining a forecast is also not a technical step but merely a step that a user can do without a computer.
Applicant argues on page 14
Nor do the claims fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. They do not recite any fundamental economic practice, commercial interaction, legal interaction, or method of managing personal behavior or relationships. Instead, they recite a technical procedure performed by a forecasting service system to generate explanation information for forecasts produced by trained time series models.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite forecasting and this forecasting is with respect to sales of a corporation (See para 0002 of Specification). These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). The Applicant merely made a conclusory statement and did not provide reasons as to why the claims do not fall in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims also do no not recite a technical procedure. Explaining a prediction is not a technical problem but a business problem. The Applicant’s specification states in para 0003 the ability to correctly explain and interpret the prediction of a model is as important as the accuracy of the model itself. This clearly teaches the business problem of interpreting/explaining a prediction of a model.
Applicant argues on page 15-16
The Specification thus identifies a deficiency in existing forecasting interpretability techniques, particularly with respect to explaining forecasts generated by traditional statistical models.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Explaining/interpreting a prediction is not a technical problem but a business problem. The Applicant’s specification states in para 0003 the ability to correctly explain and interpret the prediction of a model is as important as the accuracy of the model itself. This clearly teaches the business problem of interpreting/explaining a prediction of a model. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 18-20
That ordered combination is not a generic or conventional implementation of data analysis. Instead, it defines a particular model-based explanation technique for time series forecasting in which explanatory information is generated through selective perturbation of individual data points, reapplication of the trained model, and computation of influence values from the resulting forecast differential.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps the Applicant lays out that are not generic include selecting, applying, reapplying, and computing. These steps are mere abstract idea steps that do not need a computer. For example, a user is able to select and apply a model numerous times as well as compute values. The claims are also not analogous to Bascom. Bascom corresponded to an improvement in computer technology such as an inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content. The claims here do not recite filtering internet content. The claims here merely use the additional elements as a tool to carryout the abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 18-20
Moreover, the Office Action does not establish, with the requisite evidentiary support, that the claimed ordered combination was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128-30 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not use the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 5/28/2025 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not required.
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, 5-12, and 14-20 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 18 recite the limitations of
receiving a forecast request for a particular time point…selecting a model for the time series dataset and training the model using the plurality of data points to generate a trained model; applying the trained model to the time series dataset to generate an actual forecast for the particular time point; responsive to generating the actual forecast for each data point in one or more data points in the time series dataset: perturbing the actual value of a data point by a certain amount to generate a permuted value for the data point; generating a modified time series dataset in which the actual value of the data point is replaced with the permuted value for the data point, while the actual values of other data points in the time series dataset are unchanged…applying the trained model to the modified time series dataset to generate a permuted prediction for the particular time point …computing a feature forecast weight for the data point based upon the permuted prediction for the particular time point, the actual forecast, the permuted value for the data point and the actual value of the data point; computing a forecast feature importance value for the data point using the feature forecast weight for the data point, wherein the forecast feature importance value is indicative of an impact of the actual value of the data point on the actual forecast; and generating explanation information for the data point based on the forecast feature importance value computed for the data point; generating explanation information for the time series dataset, wherein the explanation information for the time series dataset comprises a set of one or more forecast feature importance values computed for the one or more data points in the time series dataset; and outputting the actual forecast and the explanation information for the time series dataset as a visualization representing an impact of the actual value of each of the one or more data points on the actual forecast.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, selecting, training, applying, generating, perturbing, computing, and outputting. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply receiving a request, selecting a model, training a model to generate a trained model, applying the trained model to generate an actual forecast, perturbing a data value with respect to the actual forecast, using the perturbed value to make a prediction which includes generating a modified time series set, computing a feature forecast weight/value, generating an explanation for the prediction and outputting that prediction by way of a visualization. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Making a prediction and explanation is not novel and has been done before the technological age.
The claims also recite forecasting and making a prediction. The forecasting is with respect to sales of a corporation and stocks (See para 0002 of Specification). The claimed invention also states the business problem of correctly explaining and interpreting a model as seen in para 0003 in Applicant’s specification. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of system, processor, memory, processing devices, and non-transitory computer readable medium.
These components are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or software. 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims, as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe information regarding the time series such as impacts of the values. In addition, the dependent claims further describe additional information regarding the explanation information such as the feature forecast weight. In addition, the dependent claims further recite details about the explanation information such as a bar graph.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 11 recites system, memory, processor
Claim 18 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium, processing devices
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0082.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0082. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Wang (US11537874B1) Discloses techniques for forecasting using deep factor models with random effects are described. A forecasting framework combines the strengths of both classical and neural forecasting methods in a global-local framework for forecasting multiple time series. A global model captures the common latent patterns shared by all-time series, while a local model explains the variations at the individual level.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights