DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 07/24/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards the rejection under 35 USC 101. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “The claims recite a number of limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind and do not represent mathematical concepts. For example, the Office appears to recognize that claim 1 includes elements that are not directed to a judicial exception (e.g., "indicating detection of the regime shift based on the determined probability density function change satisfying a shift condition", and that “new claim 21 provides an additional element that is not directed to either a mental process or a mathematical concept. For example, "responsive to indicating detection of the regime shift, restricting availability of an inferential model associated with the streaming data" can neither be performed in the mind nor does it recite a mathematical concept.”, the examiner respectfully notes that the above steps are clearly directed to abstract (insignificant post-solution activities) and thus do not recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception, as shown below, contrary to applicant’s assertions. As per Applicant’s assertions that: “First, Applicant's Specification clearly provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.”, In other words, the present regime shift detector solves the technical problem of model drift by signaling that regime shift has been detected in the streaming data via a change in the probability density function conformity over time. As discussed above, the technology provides the technical improvement of accounting for model drift by signaling that regime shift has been detected in the streaming data via a change in the probability density function conformity over time. Therefore, the claims reflect the disclosed improvement and are therefore patent-eligible under §101. While it is clear that the claims reflect an improvement to a technical field discussed in the specification, the above limitation of claim 1 is also not insignificant extra-solution activity. The Office characterizes this limitation of claim 1 (e.g., "indicating detection of the regime shift based on the determined probability density function change satisfying a shift condition") as insignificant extra-solution activity. ““, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims do not in any way provide any improvement to a technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by: “indicating detection of the regime shift based on the determined probability density function change satisfying a shift condition”. One could also recognize said regime shift by way of observation once a change occurs and that even assuming that that claim recites some sort of improvement which is not the case here, said improvement would have only applied to Applicants’ method and not the computer in general, i.e. when other computer applications are executed, they would not have benefitted from the same improvement that Applicants intended to have produced. Therefore, the claims are abstract, contrary to applicant’s assertions. With regards to the applicant’s assertions under integration of the recited abstract to a practical application (page 12 (III)) and that the claim recites significantly more page 15 (IV)) , the examiner respectfully notes that the claims clearly fail to recite anything that goes beyond the judicial exception, as the additional step of signaling a regime shift in the streaming data could clearly be serve as alerting/outputting said shift which do not in any adding anything more significant to the recited abstract nor is there any improvement provided by the claims, contrary to applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the claims are abstract, as currently presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
5.1 Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Is the claim directed to a statutory category?
Yes. The claims are to a method (1), system (8), and storage media (15).
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (1), system (8), and storage media (15) of detecting a regime shift in streaming data, comprising: The step of: “generating a curve fit to each probability density function of a plurality of probability density functions, the curve fit representing an attribute of the streaming data over a first duration of the streaming data”; “scoring conformity of each curve fit to yield a plurality of fit scores”; “selecting a first duration probability density function among the plurality of probability density functions based on satisfaction of a probability density function fit condition by the fit score corresponding to the first duration probability density function”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mental process or otherwise a mathematical concept. Likewise, the step of: “determining a probability density function change between the selected first duration probability density function and a second duration probability density function, wherein the second duration probability density function is selected for streaming data representing the attribute over a second duration of the streaming data that is different from the first duration”; under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation such as: “one or more hardware processors”, “a curve fit generator”, “a fit scorer”, “a probability density function selector”, “a probability density function change determiner”, “a regime shift indicator”, “a machine learning model”, “one or more tangible processor-readable storage media”, “instructions”, “a computing device”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see fig.2, 4) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “indicating detection of the regime shift based on the determined probability density function change satisfying a shift condition”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution extra=solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “one or more hardware processors”, “a curve fit generator”, “a fit scorer”, “a probability density function selector”, “a probability density function change determiner”, “a regime shift indicator”, “a machine learning model”, “one or more tangible processor-readable storage media”, “instructions”, “a computing device”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well known, routine, and conventional activities (see fig.2, 4) which can be of any type, including general-purpose computer previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “indicating detection of the regime shift based on the determined probability density function change satisfying a shift condition”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under post-solution extra=solution activities that are also well-known, routine and conventional activities and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f); thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, using computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to perform the abstract, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract, as constructed.
5.2 Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-22 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations (claims 2, 9, 16), “wherein the second duration probability density function is selected by: generating a different curve fit of the streaming data representing the attribute over the second duration of the streaming data to each of the plurality of probability density functions; scoring conformity of each different curve fit to yield a plurality of different fit scores; and selecting the second duration probability density function among the plurality of probability density functions based on satisfaction of the probability density function fit condition or a different probability density function fit condition by the different fit score corresponding to the second duration probability density function” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process). (claims 3, 10, and 17); “wherein determining the probability density function change comprises: determining that the first duration probability density function is of a different type of probability density function from the second duration probability density function” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claims 4, 11, 18); “wherein determining the probability density function change comprises: determining that one or more attribute fit parameters of the first duration probability density function and one or more attribute fit parameters of the second duration probability density function satisfy a fit parameter shift condition” (mathematical concept or otherwise mental process); (claims 5, 12, and 19); “wherein the streaming data representing the attribute over the first duration of the streaming data is processable by a machine learning model, and indicating detection of the regime shift comprises: instructing a computing device to restrict access to the machine learning model based on the indicated regime shift detection” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claims 6, 13) “generating at least one curve fit using a first component probability density function and a second component probability density function, wherein the first component probability density function satisfies the probability density function fit condition for a first portion of the streaming data of the attribute over the first duration of the streaming data and the second component probability density function satisfies the probability density function fit condition for a second portion of the streaming data of the attribute over the first duration of the streaming data, wherein the first duration probability density function includes the first component probability density function and the second component probability density function” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claims 7, 20); “normalizing uncombined streaming data prior to the operation of fitting by combining dimensionally-related attributes represented in the uncombined streaming data to generate the streaming data of the attribute, the attribute being rendered dimensionless by the combination” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process); (claims 21); “responsive to indicating detection of the regime shift, restricting availability of an inferential model associated with the streaming data” (Insignificant post-solution activities); (claim 22) “determining that the probability density function change satisfies a shift condition” (mental process); all of which further amount to further mathematical concept and/or mental process similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
6.1 Ha et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0026986) teaches a neural network method of parameter quantization includes determining a probability density function (PDF) type, for each channel, appropriate for the channel profile information based on a classification network receiving the channel profile information as a dataset.
7. Claims 1-22 are rejected and 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 September 24, 2026
