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 .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application no. GR20220100125, filed on October 23, 2018.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/13/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
The remarks are directed to amended language not examined by the examiner, see the current office action below.
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, 21-39 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 independent claim 1, the amended claim limitations “processing, by a signal processing system, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed; and processing, by the signal processing system, the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed” (emphasis added) render the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the intended scope of the claimed invention in view of the recited limitations “receiving, at an artificial neural network, data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal; processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals;. It would appear that the claimed signal processing system is unable/incapable of processing “the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed” as the claim also requires the third dataset to be processed by the artificial neural network. It is unclear what process the claim refers to when requiring that . “the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed”. Specifically, the processed and unprocessed elements by the claimed processing system are unclear given that that the limitation requires the following:
A signal processing system processes predicted data representative of the second time sample at “a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed”
The time requirement is unclear a sample that is earlier in a sequence comprising a first, second, and third sample with be either data collected or included in a first sample at a time/in an order prior to the second sample.
Given the third sample occurring prior to the second with always be processed at a time prior to the second sample by the artificial neural network (ANN) as claimed in the limitation “wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals”
How would the third same be processed at a later time when it is always processed as part of the first sets of data by the ANN, as claimed in the limitation “processing, by the signal processing system, the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed”?
A time sequence of data samples are claimed to be processed in order by the ANN as claimed in the limitation “processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals”
Given that the predicted data are required to be a representative of “time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals” and are generated, as claimed, by “processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples…”
The amended claim limitations appear to require that the generated predicted data representing a first sample of processed data, or broadly any sample, that is earlier in the sequence than the second time and/or second data sample. (i.e. the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples)
As claimed the third data samples are considered part of the first sample set in the time sequence of data samples (i.e. the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed) and therefore, would be processed as part of the first data samples to train the artificial neural network, as required in the limitation “processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals”
Given the requirements of the claim limitations as highlighted above the amended claim limitations are incoherent and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the intended scope of the claimed invention
The examiner assumes any time-sequence data processing method/model is within the scope of the amended claim limitations.
Regarding claims 28 and 36, the claims recite limitations similar with claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding the dependent claims, that depend of claims 1, 28, and 36 noted above, the claims do not resolve the noted deficiency and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
… processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time- varying signal … to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, … (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.)
processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals; and processing, by a signal processing system, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed; and processing, by the signal processing system, the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
the method comprising: receiving, at an artificial neural network, data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network)
… the system comprising an artificial neural network, and the time-varying signal comprising a sequence of time samples…, …the third time sample being earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
... processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time- varying signal using the artificial neural network…wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals; processing, by a signal processing system, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed; and processing, by the signal processing system, the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
… processing the data representative of the second time sample of the time-varying signal …. to generate predicted data representative of a fourth time sample of the time-varying signal, … (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating an opinion based on observations, evaluations and/or judgements as claimed.)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising: receiving, at the artificial neural network, data representative of the second time sample of the time-varying signal; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network)
and processing the data representative of the second time sample of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a fourth time sample of the time-varying signal,... (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
the fourth time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample, and at a time when the predicted data representative of the second time sample would otherwise be processed. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein processing, by the signal processing system, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed comprises encoding, by an encoder, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
encoding, by an encoder, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea recited from claim 22.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising transmitting, by the signal processing and to a decoder, the encoded predicted data representative of the second time sample. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein encoding the predicted data representative of the second time sample further comprises: generating, (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating an opinion based on observations, evaluations and/or judgements as claimed.)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein encoding the predicted data representative of the second time sample further comprises: generating, using the encoder, … generating, using a fusion module, a latent representation, … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites abstract idea in claim 1.
further comprising: generating, (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating an opinion based on observations, evaluations and/or judgements as claimed.)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising: generating, by the signal processing system, . (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
and transmitting, by the signal processing system, the binarized representation of the latent representation to a decoder. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites abstract idea in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the artificial neural network comprises a recurrent neural network. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites abstract idea in claim 26.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the recurrent neural network comprises long short-term memory (LSTM) units. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 28-35, the limitations are similar to those in claim 1, 21-27 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 36-39, the limitations are similar to those in claim 1, 21-23 and are rejected under the same rationale.
As shown above, claims 1, 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as "significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 21-39 have been fully considered under 35 USC 102 and 103.
Claims Independent claims 1, 28 and 36 and their respective dependent claims are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP $2111.01 none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations found within the independent claims, particularly the amended claim limitations directed to: “processing the data representative of one or more first time samples of the time-varying signal using the artificial neural network to generate predicted data representative of a second time sample of the time-varying signal, the second time sample being later in the sequence of time samples than the one or more first time samples, wherein the artificial neural network is trained to predict data representative of time samples of time-varying signals based on data representative of earlier time samples of the time-varying signals; and processing, by a signal processing system, the predicted data representative of the second time sample at a time when a third sample that is earlier in the sequence of time samples than the second time sample would otherwise be processed; and processing, by the signal processing system, the third time sample at a later time that is different than the time when the third sample would otherwise be processed” (highlighted from claim 1 limitations) in context of the claim as a whole.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karg et al. (US 20220004876): teaches in 0003: The method includes encoding data defining a training sample as a vector of time delays in a network input signal, and supplying the input signal to an oscillatory neural network.
McDonnell et al. (US 20230071667): teaches in equipment, such as machinery or other devices, is commonly monitored via multiple sensors that generate time-series sensor data indicative of operation of the equipment.
Wu et al. (NPL: “Deep transformer models for time series forecasting: The influenza prevalence case”): teaches forecasting given time series input data using encoder/decoder transformer models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm EST..
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/OLUWATOSIN ALABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights