DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Original Application filed on April 11, 2023. All references to this application refer to the U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0346386 A1.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims. Claims 1-27 are rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The first sentence of paragraph 0025 reads “…we use a centered rolling window of 31 or 1/3 of the length of the input time series data…” It is believed that this should recite “…we use a centered rolling window of 3:1 or 1/3 of the length of the input time series data…”
Similarly, the first sentence of paragraph 0055 reads “…the amplitude scaling logic 150 may use a centered rolling window of 31, or 1/3 of the length of the input time series data...” It is believed that this should recite “…the amplitude scaling logic 150 may use a centered rolling window of 3:1, or 1/3 of the length of the input time series data...”
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
analyzing time series data using a quadratic function to determine a quadratic trend prediction;
removing the quadratic trend from the time series data to generate first detrended time series data;
determining a moving median of the time series data;
removing the moving median from the time series data to generate second detrended time series data;
determining an amplitude scaling factor based on the second detrended time series data;
descaling the first detrended time series data using the amplitude scaling factor to generate descaled time series data;
analyzing the descaled time series data using an attributes model to determine a seasonal prediction; and
generating, by a processing device, a time series forecast based on the seasonal prediction, the quadratic trend prediction, and the amplitude scaling factor.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations above are directed to mathematical concepts and mental process able to be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Using a quadratic function, determining a moving median, determining an amplitude scaling factor, generating first and second detrended time series data, and generating descaled time series data all recite mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. Additionally, a human can make judgements such as analyzing time series data, analyzing descaled time series data, and generating a time series forecast mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The additional elements in this claim are “an attributes model” and “a processing device.” These elements are recited at high levels of generality and are thus treated as generic computer components performing computer functions. Thus these are mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Yes).
Step 2B
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, the only additional elements are “an attributes model” and “a processing device,” which at best are mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas and cannot provide an inventive concept, even when considered in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Yes).
Claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to independent claims 10 and 19,
These claims are similar in scope to Claim 1 and are rejected under a similar rationale. The memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in these claims are also generic computing components.
Claims 10 and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-27: These claims only recite further abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and mental processes) and thus are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 101, as relating to judicial exceptions without significantly more, are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of amendments to these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of invention.
Examiner’s Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 are indicated as allowable over the prior art as indicated below, and would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The Examiner has carefully examined independent claims 1, 10, and 19. The closest prior art references of record are U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0198263 A1, field by Gua et al. on December 23, 2022, and published on June 23, 2022 (hereinafter Guo), U.S. Patent No. 11,250,449 B1, issued to Bledsoe et al., on February 15, 2022, and filed on July 9, 2019 (hereinafter Bledsoe), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0018798 A1, filed by Dorneich et al., on May 13, 2007, and published on January 15, 2009 (hereinafter Dorneich), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0224677 A1, filed by Tomic et al., on January 21, 2020, and published on July 22, 2021 (hereinafter Tomic), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130293 A1, filed by Singh et al., on February 15, 2018, and published on May 2, 2019 (hereinafter Singh), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0245526 A1, filed by Banubakode et al., on January 29, 2021, and published on August 4, 2022 (hereinafter Banubakode), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210326235 A1, filed by Penumarthi et al., on March 29, 2021, and published on October 21, 2021 (hereinafter Penumarthi), and Non-Patent Literature entitled “A Novel Approach for Decomposition of Financial Time Series,” by Gautam et al., published in Proceedings Internation Conference on Recent Innovations in Signal Processing and Embedding Systems, October 29, 2017 (hereinafter Gautam).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are indicated as allowable over Gou, Bledsoe, Dorneich, Tomic, Singh, Banubakode, Penumarthi, and Gautam, at least because the cited combination of references does not teach or suggest the following limitations, recited in one form or another, by independent claims 1, 10, and 19:
Determining an amplitude scaling factor based on the second detrended time series data;
Descaling the first detrended time series data using the amplitude scaling factor to generate descaled time series data;
Analyzing the descaled time series data using an attributes model to determine a seasonal prediction;
Generating, by a processing device, a time series forecast based on the seasonal prediction, the quadratic trend prediction, and the amplitude scaling factor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references 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. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC J. BYCER whose telephone number is (571) 270-3741. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-6pm, and alternate Fridays 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, MATT ELL can be reached on (571) 270-3264. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ERIC J. BYCER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights