DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/26/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (page 7) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected on these grounds.
Applicant argues that the recited operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind and require computer execution and specialized model structures, including using a VAE (page 8).
It is respectfully submitted that using generic computer technology is not considered significantly more than an abstract mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Further, using neural networks, including multiple neural networks used together, is well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Kim, Kuehnel and Nagai cited below in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. And, while the use of VAE’s (variational encoders) is moot given that a VAE is not claimed, these variational encoders are also well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Takahashi, Cavatassi, Zhang and Santamaria-Peng cited below in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘claims now require a specific technological arrangement that improves anomaly detection in multivariate time-series systems… They claim a particular model architecture and corresponding computations that improve the functioning of anomaly detection technology in the field of multivariate time-series analysis.’ (page 9).
It is respectfully submitted that, as indicated above, using multiple neural networks and VAE’s is well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (identifying whether signals are similar and labelling signal data) is still merely an abstract idea. It is also noted that, the claims recite that the method, apparatus and computer program product are for anomaly detection, but do not positively recite actually detecting any anomalies. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘the claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception itself by describing a non-conventional, non-generic method for enforcing access constraints in a cloud-based search system’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that this argument is moot because the claims do not recite any type of constraints or cloud-based search systems. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘The Office Action does not identify any evidence showing that this particular pairing and the recited encoder-to-prior comparison for similarity assessment are well-understood, routine, and conventional at the relevant time. Nor does the Office Action cite any reference that teaches or suggests this specific arrangement in its§ 101 analysis. The amended claims therefore provide "significantly more" than an alleged mental process, because they require a concrete two-network architecture that performs defined computations to assess similarity in latent space.’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that, as detailed above and in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, evidence is provided that neural networks, combinations of neural networks and VAE’s (encoders) are well-understood, routine and conventional. It is also noted that the use of ‘latent space’ is moot because it is not claimed. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 10-12) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites ‘encoder parameters that are compared to cluster prior distributions to assess similarity’ and it is unclear what these cluster distributions are prior to.
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites ‘encoder parameters that are compared to cluster prior distributions to assess similarity’ and it is unclear what these cluster distributions are prior to.
With regard to claim 17, this claim recites ‘encoder parameters that are compared to cluster prior distributions to assess similarity’ and it is unclear what these cluster distributions are prior to.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of identifying whether signals are similar and labelling signal data, see MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites a method of anomaly detection and filtering of time-series data, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
identifying, by a first neural network for a multivariate time-series signal, one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals that are similar within a predetermined threshold to the multivariate time-series signal, wherein the first neural network outputs a cluster probability vector, and wherein a second neural network encodes the multivariate time-series signal into encoder parameters that are compared to cluster prior distributions to assess similarity; and
labelling the multivariate time-series signal based on the labels associated with the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals, i.e. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations comprise a mental process involving analyzing data to decide if they are similar to other data and labelling data based on other data that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. using first and second neural networks (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using first and second neural networks (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm) is not considered significantly more. Considering the claim elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Note that neural networks, including multiple neural networks used together, are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Kim et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200250974 [particularly 0052-0053], Kuehnel et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210095995 [particularly 0038-0040], and Nagai et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190362232 [0034-0036]. And variational encoders are also well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Takahashi et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210264285 [0005, 0046-0047], Cavatassi et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230079744 [0029, 0171, 0178], Zhang et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210358577 and Santamaria-Peng et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210227223.
Claim 2 recites smoothening the multivariate time-series signal (mental and/or mathematical process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites smoothening the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals (mental and/or mathematical process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites determining whether to generate an alert based on the label (mental process involving observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites assigning a severity level to the multivariate time-series signal (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites assigning a score to the multivariate time-series signal (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites creating, from previously observed multivariate data, one or more of the previously observed multivariate time-series signals (mental process involving data manipulation). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites identifying, based on the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals, a label using a voting algorithm (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites bootstrapping a system with one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals that involves identifying a system that is similar to the system under observation (mental process) and gathering multivariate time-series signals from the similar system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), see the instant specification/PGPub [0094]. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus for anomaly detection and filtering of time-series data, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the process performed by the apparatus is similar to that recited in independent claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a computer processor and a computer memory, the computer memory including computer program instructions and using first and second neural networks (insignificant extra-solution elements – applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm. Note that ‘Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer’) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a computer processor and a computer memory, the computer memory including computer program instructions and using first and second neural networks (insignificant extra-solution elements – applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites determining whether to generate an alert based on the label (mental process involving observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites delivering the alert to a user (insignificant additional elements — mere instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites creating, from previously observed multivariate data, one or more of the previously observed multivariate time-series signals (mental process involving data manipulation). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites an abstract time window associated the abstract multivariate data. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites identifying, based on the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals, a label using a voting algorithm (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites bootstrapping a system with one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals that involves identifying a system that is similar to the system under observation (mental process) and gathering multivariate time-series signals from the similar system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)), see the instant specification/PGPub [0094]. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites a computer program product for anomaly detection and filtering of time-series data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium and computer program instructions stored therein, i.e. an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the process performed by the computer program product is similar to that recited in independent claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. a computer program product for anomaly detection and filtering of time-series data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium and computer program instructions stored therein and using first and second neural networks (insignificant extra-solution elements – applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm). Note that ‘Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer’) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, a computer program product for anomaly detection and filtering of time-series data, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium and computer program instructions stored therein and using first and second neural networks (insignificant extra-solution elements – applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C using a broadly recited well-known algorithm) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites identifying, based on the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals, a label using a voting algorithm, and wherein the voting algorithm gives equal weighting to each of the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals (mental process involving using an abstract algorithm to manipulate data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites identifying, based on the one or more previously observed multivariate time-series signals, a label using a voting algorithm, and wherein the voting algorithm gives unequal weighting at least two or more of the previously observed multivariate time-series signals (mental process involving using an abstract algorithm to manipulate data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites a weighting for each previously observed multivariate time-series signal is based on a similarity between the previously observed multivariate time-series signal and the multivariate time-series signal (describes an how an abstract weighting is related to data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
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 BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119