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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 preamble recites in part “The cloud infrastructure of claim 8” should be --The cloud infrastructure node of claim 8-- to correspond to claim 8’s recited “A cloud infrastructure node”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “generating…a temporally aggregated time series by summing a set of time step values from the time series, a second number of time step values of the set of time step values equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon”. The recited “a second number of time step values of the set of time step values equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon” is grammatically ambiguous because the limitation hangs as a disjointed noun phrase attempting to modify “set of time step values”. The repetition of “number of time step values” which refers to a count versus “time step values” referring to the data creates confusion. It is unclear whether “second number” is a new variable or simply a reference to the count of items in the set. For the purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as “generating…a temporally aggregated time series by summing a set of sequential time step values from the time series, wherein a quantity of time step values in the set of time step values is equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon”. Adding “sequential” clarifies that the values are not random and supported by Applicant’s disclosure [0038] “summing the first time step value 220 and a sequential second data point 222 to generate a value associated with a fourth data point 226”. Additionally, Applicant’s disclosure [0038] “The number of data points in each set can be based on the number of time steps into the future that the prediction is for” supports “wherein a quantity of the time step values in the set is equal to” to improve grammatical flow and precisely defines the set size.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “determining…the first forecasted time step value using time series”. The recited “using time series” is unclear as to if the determination is based on raw time series, calculated time series, or something else. For the purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as “determining…the first forecasted time step value using the first set of input values. This interpretation tracks closer to the Applicant’s argument in the Remarks that the system relies on specific extracted data (trends, seasonality, etc.) rather than generic processing.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on a defective base claim 1.
Claims 8-14 and claims 15-20 recite substantially the same claim limitations as claims 1-7 and claims 1-6, respectively, and thus claims 8-14 and claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claims 1-7.
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. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
determining a first number of time steps of a forecasting horizon associated with the second forecasted time step value: These limitations recite a mentally performable process with aid of pen and paper of using judgement to determine a first number of time steps of a forecasting horizon associated with the second forecasted time step value observed.
generating a temporally aggregated time series by summing a set of time step values from the time series, a second number of time step values of the set of time step values equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon (interpreted as generating a temporally aggregated time series by summing a set of sequential time step values from the time series, wherein a quantity of time step values in the set of time step values is equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above): These limitations recite mathematical calculations of summing a set of time step values from the time series and a mathematical relationship wherein a quantity of time step values in the set of time step values is equal to the first number of time steps of the forecasting horizon.
calculating a first set of input values from the time series and a second set of input values from the temporally aggregated time series the first set of input values and the second set of input values being based at least in part on a same set of input features: These limitations recite mathematical calculations of a first set of input values from the time series data and a second set of input values from the temporally aggregated time series wherein the first set of input values and the second set of input values being based at least in part on a same set of input features.
determining the first forecasted time step value using time series (interpreted as determining the first forecasted time step value using the first set of input values per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above); and determining the second forecasted time step value using the temporally aggregated time series: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of using mental judgement to determine the first forecasted time step value using observations of a time series and to determine the second forecasted time step value using observations of the temporally aggregated time series.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
receiving, by a computing device, a time series comprising time step values: These additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as all uses of the underlying judicial exception require the gathered time step values. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
receiving, by a computing device, a request for a first forecasted time step value and a second forecasted time step value: These additional elements recite insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering as all uses of the underlying judicial exception require the gathered first forecasted time step value and a second forecasted time step value. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
by the computing device: These additional elements merely represents generic computer machinery performing in their ordinary capacity to implement the underlying abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering recited by “receiving, by a computing device, a time series comprising a first time step value and a second time step value”. This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood routine and conventional activities similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, the additional elements include insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering recited by “receiving, by a computing device, a request for a first forecasted time step value and a second forecasted time step value”. This insignificant extra-solution activity is well-understood routine and conventional activities similar to recording a customer’s order see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, the additional elements include invoking computers or other machinery to apply the underlying judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the computing device implements a first machine learning model to determine the first forecasted time step value and a second machine learning model to determine the second forecasted time step value: These additional elements recite only the idea of a solution or outcome but the claim fails to recite details of how the solution or outcome is implemented and attempts to cover any implementation of the first/second machine learning models without any restriction as to if the first/second machine learning model is pre-trained, trained in real-time etc., and no details of the first/second machine learning models’ mechanisms, e.g. is the model a deep neural network, RNN, CNN, etc. Thus, these additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include adding words equivalent to “apply it” with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein both the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model implement a same forecasting technique: These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception because these limitations represent a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim similar to limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as oppose to other objects per MPEP 2106.05(h)(iii).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include generally link the use of
the judicial exception to indicate a field of use or technological environment. Thus, the
additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive
concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP
2106.05.
Claim 4
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the forecasting technique is an autoregressive moving average technique: These limitations recite a mathematical relationship using the forecasting technique of an autoregressive moving average technique implemented by the first and second machine learning model to forecast the fourth time step value and a fifth time step value respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does
not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such,
the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the first set of input values comprises a trend, a seasonality, an autocorrelation, a nonlinearity, or a heterogeneity of the time series: These limitations recite mathematical relationships wherein the first set of input values have a relationship of a trend, a seasonality, an autocorrelation, a nonlinearity, or a heterogeneity of the time series.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does
not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such,
the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the method further comprises discarding a sixth time step value, and wherein the sixth time step value is an oldest time step value of the time series: These limitations recite a mentally performable process of using observation and judgement to discard a sixth time step value, and wherein the sixth time step value to be an oldest time step value of observed the time series.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: There are no additional elements recited so the claim does
not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. As such,
the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 7
Step 1: a process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim are as follows:
wherein the method further comprises training the first machine learning model via the forecasting technique: These additional elements recite only the idea of a solution or outcome but the claim fails to recite details of how the solution or outcome is implemented and attempts to cover any implementation of training the first machine learning model via the forecasting technique without any restriction as to what the forecasting technique is and not details on how training is accomplished, e.g. supervised, semi-supervised, non-supervised, etc. nor are any details provided to limit the particular architecture of the first machine learning model, e.g. is this implemented as a deep neural network, a convolutional neural network, a recurrent neural network, etc. Thus, these additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 include adding words equivalent to “apply it” with the judicial exception. Thus, the additional elements, viewed individually or in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or otherwise amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 8-14
Step 1: These claims are directed to “A cloud infrastructure node, comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 8-14 recite the same abstract ideas as claims 1-7, respectively. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in these claims are not integrated into a
practical application. The only difference between claims 8-14 and claims 1-7, is that claims 8-14 are directed to “A cloud infrastructure node, comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a cloud infrastructure node, comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 8-14 mirrors that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 do not contain significantly more
than the judicial exception for these claims. The only difference between claims 8-14 and claims 1-7, is that claims 8-14 are directed to “A cloud infrastructure node, comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a cloud infrastructure node, comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to, cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 8-14 mirrors that of claims 1-7, respectively.
Claims 15-20
Step 1: These claims are directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed, causes a processor to perform operations comprising:”; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 15-20 recite the same abstract ideas as claims 1-6, respectively. Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception recited in these claims are not integrated into a
practical application. The only difference between claims 15-20 and claims 1-6, is that claims 15-20 are directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed, causes a processor to perform operations comprising:”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed, causes a processor to perform operations comprising, cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 15-20 mirrors that of claims 1-6, respectively.
Step 2B: The additional elements from Step 2A Prong 2 do not contain significantly more
than the judicial exception for these claims. The only difference between claims 15-20 and claims 1-6, is that claims 15-20 are directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed, causes a processor to perform operations comprising:”. However, mere recitation that a judicial exception is to be performed using generic computer equipment in their ordinary capacity, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed, causes a processor to perform operations comprising, cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis at this step for claims 15-20 mirrors that of claims 1-6, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcomes the claim objections set forth in the Office Action dated 9/30/2025. However, claim 9 preamble informalities claim objections are presented in the claim objection above.
Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/17/2025, on pages 16-17, traversing the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 9/30/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/17/2025, on pages 8-15, traversing the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered by are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks, pages 11-13, that “even if the Examiner believes that claim 1 recites a “judicial exception,” which Applicant does not concede, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception under Prong 2 because “the claims reflect the improvements over the prior art system as each successive time step value can be determined based on a different temporally aggregated time series. Therefore, as indicated in paragraph [0026], an error associated with predicting the first time step value does not carry through to the second predicted value.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, a review of the claim 1 limitations as a whole reveals that the alleged technical solution (i.e., the mechanism that prevents error propagation) is not actually reflected in the claim language. Claim 1 recites at least "determining, by the computing device, the first forecasted time step value using time series; and determining, by the computing device, the second forecasted time step value using the temporally aggregated time series." This language fails to reflect the critical aspect of the applicant's argument: the exclusion of the first forecasted value from the determination of the second forecasted value. The claim requires using the "temporally aggregated time series" to determine the second value. Crucially, the claim does not exclude the use of the "first forecasted time step value" as an additional input. Many prior art "hybrid" systems use both historical data (which could be aggregated) and prior predictions. Because claim 1 is open-ended ("comprising"), it encompasses a system that uses both the aggregated series and the first forecast to predict the second value. In such a system, the error from the first forecast would still propagate to the second. Furthermore, claim 1 is devoid of any mention of “error” or “error propagation”. Applicant does not provide any substantive rebuttals to Prong 1 analysis and the examiner asserts that the forecasting steps recite abstract ideas as analyzed in Prong 1. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Claim 1 merely recite the gathering and summing of data (aggregation) and the use of that data in a forecasting step (the judicial exception), which lacks the specificity required to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 fails to reflect the alleged solution to "Error Propagation", does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is thus patent ineligible because claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception under Prong 2.
Secondly, even under the standards recently clarified in Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims remain directed to abstract ideas because they rely on generic machine learning models performing mathematical data manipulations without improving the functioning of the machine learning mechanism itself.
Applicant argues in the Remarks, pages 13-15, that like DDR Holdings and Trading Technologies the claims “recite specific operations and features of generating separate temporally aggregated time series for each successive forecast value. These techniques address the technical issues of a computing system carrying over an error from one forecasted value to a successive forecasted value” and thus are directed to “significantly more” than the alleged abstract idea as there is no technical rationale for a system outside the realm of computer networks to use the above operations and features. Additionally, like Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Applicant submits that the features of claim 1 are combined in a way that is non-conventional and non-generic, and that includes an inventive concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted with respect to Prong 1 analysis above, the claim 1 is unlike DDR Holdings and Trading Technologies in that the claims do not recite specific operations and features to address alleged technical issues of a computing system carrying over an error from one forecasted value to a successive forecasted value as the claims do not even recite “error” or “error propagation”, do not recite “separate” or exclude the use of the "first forecasted time step value" as an additional input. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Examiner asserts that unlike Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the additional elements of claim 1 do not represent “significantly more” than gathering and summing of data (aggregation) and the use of that data in a forecasting step (the judicial exception). At best, any non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known and conventional components would be of the abstract idea claim elements recited. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Thus, claim 1 additional elements are not “significantly more” than the abstract idea and is patent ineligible under Step 2B.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. 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.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143