CTFR 17/861,634 CTFR 84183 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In response to the application filed on March 05, 2026, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-21 are now pending for examination in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments: In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 11, applicant argues “An example embodiment provides a technical improvement of efficiently estimating forecasting parameters and reducing computation costs.” Examiner’s Reply: Applicant argues that the claims comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process (e.g. pattern recognition)), then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for identifying a seasonal pattern (the computer is being used as a generic tool). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regardless of the execution, Identifying a variety of seasons using mathematical techniques does not improve the functioning of a computing system. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1-2, 4-9, 11-16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1-2, 4-9, 11-16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance , hereinafter 2019 PEG . Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the devices and methods of claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1. Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG , it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mathematical concepts and mental processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas. Independent claim 1, 8, and 15 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes : causing, by the computing device, the autocorrelation unit to identify a first plurality of seasons based at least in part on processing the time series using the autocorrelation technique, wherein a season comprises an identifiable and repeating pattern in the time series, wherein the first plurality of seasons have a first time length with common factors (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for identifying a season); causing, by the computing device and in parallel with identifying the first plurality of seasons, the Fourier unit to identify a second plurality of seasons in a frequency-domain based at least in part on processing the time series using the Fourier technique, wherein a season comprises an identifiable and repeating pattern in the time series, wherein the first plurality of seasons have a first time length with common factors (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for identifying a season); generating, by the computing device, a third plurality of seasons in the time- domain based at least in part on the second plurality of seasons, wherein the first plurality of seasons identified using the autocorrelation technique and the third plurality of seasons are grouped to form a fourth plurality of seasons in the time domain (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for forecast modeling); identifying, by the computing device, a first season and a second season based at least in part on the fourth plurality of seasons, wherein a length of the first season is a factor of a length of the second season; estimating, by the computing device, a Fourier order for the first season based at least in part on the length of the first season and the length of the second season (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for forecast modeling); estimating, by the computing device, a seasonality mode of the first season based at least in part on the length of the first season and the length of the second season (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for forecast modeling); selecting, by the computing device, a forecasting model to forecast a value of a future time step of the time series based at least in part on the Fourier order and the seasonality mode (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for forecast modeling); and forecasting, by the computing device and using the selected forecasting model, the value of the future time step of the time series (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for forecast modeling). Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15: receiving, by a computing device, a time series comprising a plurality of data points, wherein each data point of the time series comprises a time associated with the data point and a value (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering); providing, by the computing device, the time series to an autocorrelation unit and a Fourier unit, the autocorrelation unit for using an autocorrelation technique, and the Fourier unit for using a Fourier technique (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to providing time series data). Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two , the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. With respect to claim(s) 2, 9, and 16: Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG: transforming the second plurality of seasons from the frequency-domain to the time-domain (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by forecast modeling). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim(s) 4, 11, 18: Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG: analyzing the time series using a mean squared error (MSE) regression analysis; identifying the first season based at least in part on the MSE regression analysis (The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by forecast modeling). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim(s) 5, 12, 19: wherein estimating the Fourier order comprises dividing the length of the identified second season by the length of the identified first season to obtain a quotient, wherein the estimated Fourier order is based at least in part on the quotient (The limitation recites a mathematical concept; estimating). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim(s) 6, 13, 20: determining a trend of the time series; and estimating the seasonality mode based at least in part on the trend (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by forecast modeling). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim(s) 7 and 14: wherein the seasonality mode comprises an additive seasonality or a multiplicative seasonality (The limitation recites a mental process of observation, evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by forecast modeling). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. With respect to claim(s) 21: method according to claim 1, wherein the Fourier order comprises a value indicative of a frequency or strength the first season, wherein a higher Fourier order correlates to a higher frequency and strength between the first season and the time series (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by detecting seasonal patterns for identifying a season). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity of forecast modeling. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Relevant Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . US PG-Pub. No. 20200125988 is directed Methods and Systems for a Database: [0038] machine-learning of variable seasonal patterns is providing a solution that is highly scalable. One approach is to train an explicit model, such as a Holt-Winters model, for each specific type of season. For example, one model may be trained for monthly seasons, another for quarterly seasons, another for bi-annual seasons, etc. The seasonal factors for each model may then be analyzed to determine if there is a season of the specific type associated with the model. This approach would involve a significant amount of processing overhead, especially where a large number of different types of seasons may be present. Dozens or more models may need to be trained, even in cases where only one season is present, which is both computationally expensive and inefficient. In addition, the Holt-Winters models are not tailored to detecting irregularity even for a specific type of season or to detect overlapping seasons, such as long-term seasons overlaid on weekly seasons. As a result, training separate Holt-Winters models for each specific type of season is not highly accurate or scalable. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630. 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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. /N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154 /BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 2 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 3 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 4 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 5 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 6 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 7 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 8 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 9 Art Unit: 2154 Application/Control Number: 17/861,634 Page 10 Art Unit: 2154
Prosecution Insights