DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 2/27/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/17/2026.
a. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13, 16-17 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 11-20 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 11) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method:
[B] receiving, by a drift upsampling pipeline, input comprising: a time series of data expressed as an initial drift curve; and, a drift characterization of the drift curve;
[C] performing, by the drift upsampling pipeline, a first upsampling stage on the time series of data to generate a first family of new drift curves based on the drift characterization of the initial drift curve;
[D] determining a modified drift end timestamp from a distribution for each of the new drift curves in the first family and generating the first family,
[E] wherein each of the modified drift end timestamps corresponds to a different one of the new drift curves in the first family;
[F] performing, by the drift upsampling pipeline, a second upsampling stage to determine respective frequencies of the first family of new drift curves to generate a second family of new drift curves with the respective frequencies;
[G] generating one or more intermediate observations between sequential timestamps for each of the new drift curves of the first family,
[H] wherein a number of the new drift curves in the second family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the first family;
[I] performing, by the drift upsampling pipeline, a third upsampling stage on respective noise levels of the second family of new drift curves to generate a third family of new drift curves with new respective noise levels; and
[J] applying noise values from a noise distribution to each of the new drift curves in the second family of new drift curves,
[K] wherein a number of the new drift curves in the third family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the second family
[L] outputting, by the drift upsampling pipeline, the third family of new drift curves.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recites: performing a first upsampling stage on a series of data and determining a modified drift ([C], [D]); performing a second upsampling stage on a series of data and determining intermediate observations ([F], [G]); and performing a third upsampling stage on noise levels data and applying noise values to each drift curve ([I], [J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “performing cascaded upsampling operations”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like [mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These fall under the Mathematical Concepts. i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “by the drift upsampling pipeline,” “processor,” and “non-transitory storage medium” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein each of the modified drift end timestamps corresponds to a different one of the new drift curves in the first family;”; “wherein a number of the new drift curves in the second family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the first family;”; “wherein a number of the new drift curves in the third family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the second family” as applied to the drift end timestamps, the number of drift cureves, and the number of new drift curves, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “performing cascaded upsampling operations”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receiving an input ([B]), outputting a result ([L]), …. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“performing cascaded upsampling operations”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 11) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 11) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 11 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 6, which is representative of dependent claims 16, recites:
defining a respective drift length for each of the curves in the first family of new curves, relying on an appropriate drift detector.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “performing cascaded upsampling operations”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“performing cascaded upsampling operations”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“performing cascaded upsampling operations”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“performing cascaded upsampling operations”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 (which is representative of dependent claims 16) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, which are representative of dependent claims 12-15, 17-20, respectively, recite:
wherein the initial drift curve is received from a user.
wherein the initial drift curve is generated by converting a hand-drawn drift curve to the time series of data.
wherein the drift characterization of the initial drift curve comprises an interval of a drift period of the initial drift curve.
wherein a number N of drift curves in the third family of new drift curves is specified by a user.
wherein the first upsampling stage comprises defining a respective drift length for each of the curves in the first family of new curves, relying on an appropriate drift detector.
wherein the respective drift lengths of the new drift curves in the first family are each either shorter, or longer, than a drift length of the initial drift curve.
wherein the respective frequencies for the drift curves in the second family of new drift curves are higher than the frequency of the initial drift curve.
wherein the new respective noise levels for the drift curves in the third family of new drift curves are each higher than previous respective noise levels for the drift curves in the second family of new drift curves.
wherein the initial drift curve exhibits either an incremental drift, or a sudden drift.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the initial drift; the drift characterization; the drift curves; the upsampling stage; the drift length; the frequencies; the noise; the initial drift curve – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“performing cascaded upsampling operations”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 (which are representative of dependent claims 12-15, 17-20, respectively) are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160203568 A1 PATEL; MAULIN DAHYABHAI SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ENERGY AND GHG APPORTIONMENT System and methods for appointing energy and environmental costs to provide separate billing statements for operation of business and/or healthcare related equipment is disclosed. The method determining a cost associated with a total amount of energy consumed and a cost for operation of selected equipment with regard to usage and demand. In addition, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the generation of the energy required to generate the total amount of energy and operate the selected equipment is also determined.
US 20220367007 A1 Karpus; Laurynas et al. METHOD FOR GENERATING FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN SEQUENCES WITH GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS The invention generally relates to the field of protein sequences and of generation of functional protein sequences. More particularly, the invention concerns a method for generating functional protein sequences with generative adversarial networks. The described method for functional sequence generation comprises plurality of steps, each of which is crucial to ensure the high percentage of functional sequences in the final sequence set: selecting a plurality of existing protein sequences to define the approximate sequence space for the later generated synthetic sequences, processing the selected protein sequences, approximating the unknown true distribution of amino acids of the pre-processed sequences using a variation of generative adversarial networks, obtaining protein sequences from the approximated distribution, processing of the obtained protein sequences. The described method provides a resource (e.g. time, cost) efficient way of producing synthetic protein sequences which have a high probability of being functional experimentally.
US 20180089799 A1 Johnson; Garrett M. et al. METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SPATIALLY LOCALIZED IMAGE EDITING This invention provides methods for spatially localized image editing. For example, an input image is divided into multiple bins in each dimension. For each bin, a histogram is computed, along with local image statistics such as mean, medium and cumulative histogram. Next, for each tile, a type of adjustment is determined and applied, including adjustment associated with Exposure, Brightness, Shadows, Highlights, Contrast, and Blackpoint. The adjustments are done for all tiles in the input image to render a small adjustment image. The small image is then interpolated, for example, using an edge-preserving interpolation, to get a full size adjustment image with adjustment curve for each pixel. Subsequently, per-pixel image adjustments can be performed across an entire input image to render a final adjusted image.
US 20220292291 A1 Berman; David et al. Attention Masks in Neural Network Video Processing A device configured for more efficiently processing video images within a set of video image data to detect objects is described herein. The device may include a processor configured to execute a neural network such as a convolutional neural network. The device can receive video image data from a plurality of cameras, such as stationary cameras. The device can acquire a set of sample images from a stationary camera and submit them to a specialized neural network for processing to generate an attention mask. The attention mask can be generated from a variety of methods and is applied to each of the subsequently acquired images form the camera to narrow down areas where the convolutional neural network should process data. The application of attention masks to images within video image data creates masked images that can be processed to detect objects with much greater accuracy and fewer computational resources required.
US 20160358312 A1 Kolb, V; John J. et al. Digital quaternion logarithm signal processing system and method for images and other data types A system and method for improving the detail of an input digital signal, such as a signal comprising a two dimensional image, can be implemented by computing first and second order gradients of the input signal. These gradients can be represented as quaternions. The logarithm of the quaternions can be used to determine the magnitude and orientation of gradient vectors in the input signal. This gradient magnitude and gradient orientation information can be used to construct an output digital signal that has greater detail than the input digital signal.
US 20210104014 A1 Kolb, V; John J. et al. DIGITAL GRADIENT SIGNAL PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SIGNALS COMPRISING AT LEAST THREE DIMENSIONS A system and method for improving the detail of a digital signal comprising at least three dimensions can be implemented by extracting a plurality of data cubes containing two x-planes, two y-planes, two z-planes, and amplitude information at eight locations in this x, y, and z space. A primary and secondary direction and a data plane for each data cube can then be selected based on difference calculations of eight locations in the x, y, and z directions, resulting in a 2×2 data square. This data square can then be used to compute a network neighborhood, which can subsequently be used to calculate first and second order gradient information. The first and second order gradient information can be used to construct an output signal that has greater detail than the input signal.
US 20220044113 A1 Wu; Haoyu et al. Asynchronous Neural Network Systems A device configured for processing time-series data within an asynchronous neural network may include a processor configured to execute the neural network. The device may further include a multi-step convolution pathway wherein the output of at least one step includes one or more feature maps. Additionally, a multi-step upsampling pathway with steps having corresponding convolution step inputs is included. The device further utilizes feature map data from at least one step of the multi-step convolution process as input data in at least one corresponding step of the upsampling process. The device also includes an inference frequency controller to receive input data and transmit a processing frequency signal to the neural network. The neural network can then generate feature maps at a reduced frequency within the multi-step convolution pathway, and utilize previously processed feature maps as input data within the multi-step upsampling pathway until a subsequent feature map is generated.
US 7437003 B1 Gorbatov; Boris et al. System and method for handling electronic ink A set of source points that represent a stroke input of a user is identified. The set of source points may be refined and/or modified. The set of refined/modified source points may then be stored in memory for decoding and recreation of a stroke representation. Additionally, one or both of refining and modifying the source points may be performed through one or more upsampling processes.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The claims are amended and are not directed at mathematical concepts.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“performing, by the drift upsampling pipeline, a first upsampling stage on the time series of data to generate a first family of new drift curves based on the drift characterization of the initial drift curve by determining a modified drift end timestamp from a distribution for each of the new drift curves in the first family and generating the first family, wherein each of the modified drift end timestamps corresponds to a different one of the new drift curves in the first family) and in light of the specification (“Series Augmentation for Drift Dataset Composition”), the claims are unambiguously directed to the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas, as defined by MPEP 2106.04(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Claim 1 also relates to distinct upsampling techniques (e.g., drift, frequency, noise). Embodiments of the invention transform a single curve into a larger set of curves in stages. The first stage generates a first number of new curves, the second stage generates additional curves from the first curves, and the third stage generates yet additional curves.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In addition, claim 1 is directed to a practical application that addresses the problem of generating realistic incremental drift patterns.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that Applicant refers to the provisions of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
The claim limitations that are not disclosed by the prior art of record are:
determining a modified drift end timestamp from a distribution for each of the new drift curves in the first family and generating the first family, wherein each of the modified drift end timestamps corresponds to a different one of the new drift curves in the first family;
generating one or more intermediate observations between sequential timestamps for each of the new drift curves of the first family, wherein a number of the new drift curves in the second family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the first family
applying noise values from a noise distribution to each of the new drift curves in the second family of new drift curves, wherein a number of the new drift curves in the third family is greater than a number of the new drift curves in the second family
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698