DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-16 and 18-20 are currently presented for examination.
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
Following Applicants amendments to the Specification, the objections of the Drawings is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
See Allowability Section Below
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.
Regarding claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-16 and 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-6,8-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11,13-16 and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-16 and 18-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of determining a loss pattern in a set of data, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "identifying loss patterns from historical observations, the loss patterns including block loss patterns and row loss patterns during an offline stage;” covers mental processes including observing a data set and evaluating it to identify loss patterns. The limitation of "wherein identifying the loss patterns includes: binarizing the historical observations and generating a matrix of the binarized historical observations;” covers mental processes including describing a set of data as 1s and 0s. Additionally, the limitation of “applying a rolling window over the matrix to find the block loss patterns; finding the row loss patterns based on allowed gaps;” covers mental processes including making a judgement about what data to evaluate, and evaluating the data to see if the gaps meet a standard. Additionally, the limitation of “searching for the loss patterns in on line observations collected during an online stage and identifying occurrences of the block loss patterns and the row loss patterns in the online observations based on the rolling window;” covers mental processes including evaluating another dataset based on the previously found loss patterns. Additionally, the limitation of “selecting an imputation method for each of the loss patterns found in the online observations based on a type of the loss pattern; and” covers mental processes including making a judgment on how to fix the loss patterns with an imputation method. Additionally, the limitation of “imputing values for missing values of the observations corresponding to the loss patterns found in the online observations using the selected imputation methods.” covers mental processes including making a judgment on how to fix the loss patterns with the imputation method and fixing them, including with pencil and paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 3-6,8-10,13-16 and 18-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 11, the additional element of “non-transitory storage medium”, and “one or more hardware processors”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3-6,8-10,13-16 and 18-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 11, the additional element of “non-transitory storage medium”, and “one or more hardware processors”, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 3 and 13 are directed to further defining the method of identifying the loss patterns as the use of a matrix, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 14 are directed to further defining the generation of candidate block loss patterns, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5 and 15 are directed to further defining the generation of candidate block loss patterns using a window, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 16 are directed to further defining how a loss pattern is found, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 18 are directed to further defining the output of the patterns using pencil and paper, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 9 and 19 are directed to further defining how additional block loss patterns are found, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 10 and 20 are directed to further defining what patterns are searched for, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Faizin, Rawassizadeh, Tan and Langari. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including wherein identifying the loss patterns includes: binarizing the historical observations and generating a matrix of the binarized historical observations; applying a rolling window over the matrix to find the block loss patterns; finding the row loss patterns based on allowed gaps; and identifying occurrences of the block loss patterns and the row loss patterns in the online observations based on the rolling window; in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1,3-6,8-11,13-16 and 18-20 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wen et al. Toward Digital Twin Oriented Modeling of Complex Networked Systems and Their Dynamics: A Comprehensive Survey: Also teaches the modeling of a digital twin with binarized data.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights