DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/03/2026.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 10-13 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
The Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to a judicial exception and failing to recite "significantly more." The rejection is respectfully traversed.
Applicant submits that the claims do not recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One), that the claims are nevertheless not "directed to" any allegedly recited judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two), and in any event that the claims amount to "significantly more" than any allegedly recited judicial exception (Step 2B). Applicant's reasoning is set forth as follows.
Even if certain claim elements could be interpreted as reciting an abstract idea, the claims are not "directed to" the allegedly recited abstract idea. More specifically, the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two. Regarding this step, the claims recite a solution to a technical problem identified in the specification. In particular, "certain traditional modeling techniques may concatenate multi-variate temporal inputs into a one-dimensional array, thereby destroying the multi-variate temporal structure of such inputs," and existing approaches also typically lack interpretability, producing "black-box outputs" that do not explain the impact of features on a model's predictions. These problems would not be solved by merely "determining a score based on temporal data" and "generating a report based on determined scores," the ostensibly abstract steps that the Office Action argues can be performed in the mind or with pencil and paper. Rather, a specific technical approach is needed.
To address these technical problems, the claims recite a more specific approach than the characterization proffered in the Office Action: specifically, the recited FEATS model includes "one or more feature attention heads" which process data "within a series of time windows" and "without concatenating the input data" such that the processing "preserv[es] the multi-variate temporal structure of input data."3 Furthermore, contribution scores, as recited in claim 1, provide interpretability for the FEATS model by evaluating contributions of "different temporal feature time points" and "different temporal feature sets." The "predictive temporal feature impact report" includes both attention head scores and contribution scores, integrating the FEATS model's ability to both preserve temporal structure and provide interpretability.
As further evidence of the technical improvements of the claimed methods, the specification includes several worked examples. Example 14 demonstrates that the feature attention heads correctly identify and separate orthogonal features, and that contribution scores accurately quantify the relative importance of different variables and time points. Example 25 illustrates that the claimed method achieves performance better than competing benchmarks while providing interpretable feature decomposition. Example 36 illustrates the claimed method's performance on realistic trading data, showing competitive performance with competing benchmarks while providing interpretability that is unavailable with other approaches. Accordingly, the worked examples demonstrate an improvement to computer functionality, a hallmark of a practical application under the USPTO eligibility framework.
On at least this basis, the inquiry should end at Step 2A, prong two, because the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim limitations do not recite abstract ideas because they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to traditional modeling techniques that “may concatenate multi-variate temporal inputs into a one-dimensional array, thereby destroying the multi-variate temporal structure of such inputs”, but offers no solution in the claims stating that the inputs are not concatenated. Applicant also points to the idea that the instant invention provides a certain level of interpretability over the state of the art “black box outputs”, but the only example of combatting this interpretability problem is presented in the final limitation of the independent claims, wherein the limitation states that a feature impact report is generated. While no example of said report is explicitly stated to be provided in the drawings accompanied with the application, Examiner believes that the various plots and graphs of figures 9A-11C to be akin to said report. Examiner also believes that one skilled in the art could reasonable infer that said provided plots do not, in fact, provide any meaningful interpretability to the output of the model nor do they provide a meaningful interpretation of the impact of the features of the training data.
Applicant argues that the instant application provides an improvement to computer functionality because the worked examples in the specification prove that the models used have better performance. Examiner disagrees. The examples provided in the specification show that the provided models are better than some, but not all, models. By Applicant’s own admission, the XGB2 model performs better than the FEATS model, except in the category of cross entropy loss, a metric that the instant application does not set out to provide an improvement upon. Applicant also argues that since the FEATS model has feature interpretability, that it therefore must be the better model because the feature relevancy can be explained. Examiner disagrees and directs to the above rationale regarding the provided drawings 9A-11C as not providing any meaningful interpretability to the output of the model.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 13 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
The Office Action (i) rejects claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lim ("Temporal Fusion Transformers for Interpretable Multi-horizon Time Series Forecasting") in view of Calmon (U.S. PGPub. No. 2017/0364803); and (ii) rejects claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lim in view of Calmon and further in view of Zhu (U.S. PGPub. No. 2020/0410355). The rejections are respectfully traversed.
Without acceding to the rejections found in the Office Action and solely to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended the independent claims to incorporate the allowable subject matter of claims 9 and 18, and submits that the claims are now allowable over the § 103 rejections.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to roll up dependent claims that were previously flagged as containing subject matter that would be allowable over the applied prior art references.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a computer implemented method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 10 recites, in part, an apparatus, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent Claim 19 recites, in part, a computer program product, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“determining, by an attention head engine and using the FEATS model, one or more attention head scores, wherein (a) each attention head score corresponds to a feature attention head included in the FEATS model and (b) an attention head score is determined based on the one or more temporal feature time points for each temporal feature set within a series of time windows”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a score based on temporal data.
“generating, by the attention head engine and using the FEATS model, a contribution score, wherein (a) the contribution score is at least one of a variable contribution score and temporal contribution score, (b) the variable contribution score evaluates contributions of different temporal feature time points to the one or more attention head scores, and (c) the temporal contribution score evaluates contributions of different temporal feature sets to the one or more attention head scores”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating scores based on how influential variables are to the machine learning model.
“generating the predictive temporal feature impact report based on one or more determined attention head scores and the contribution score”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a report based on determined scores.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving an entity input data object”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“by communications hardware”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (communication hardware) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein: i) the entity input data object describes one or more temporal feature sets, ii) each temporal feature set includes one or more temporal feature time points, and iii) the one or more temporal feature time points are ordered temporally within the entity input data object”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (temporal data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“by an attention head engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“by a downstream model engine”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving an entity input data object” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by communications hardware”, “by an attention head engine and using the FEATS model”, and “by a downstream model engine” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “wherein: i) the entity input data object describes one or more temporal feature sets, ii) each temporal feature set includes one or more temporal feature time points, and iii) the one or more temporal feature time points are ordered temporally within the entity input data object” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (temporal data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 2 recites in part:
“determining a per-temporal feature time impact score for each time window associated with the feature attention head”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining scores for features within a given time window.
“determining a temporal feature time impact vector based on one or more determined per-temporal feature time impact scores”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining vectors based on determined scores.
“determining the attention head score for the feature attention head based on the temporal feature time impact vector”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining scores based on determined vectors.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“by the attention head engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by the attention head engine and using the FEATS model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“training a set of trainable parameters of the feature attention head”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (train a model) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“by the attention head engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a set of trainable parameters of the feature attention head” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by the attention head engine and using the FEATS model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“determining an overall model response based on the one or more determined attention head scores”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a model output based on determined scores.
“wherein the predictive temporal feature impact report is based on the overall model response”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a report that accounts for the model output.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“by the downstream model engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by the downstream model engine and using the FEATS model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 5 recites in part:
“generating one or more static feature vectors based on the one or more temporally static features”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating vectors from data.
“determining an overall model response based on the one or more determined attention head scores and the one or more static feature vectors”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a model output based on the model inputs.
“wherein the predictive temporal feature impact report is based on the overall model response”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses generating a report that accounts for the model output.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“by a temporally static feature engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“by the downstream model engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by a temporally static feature engine and using the FEATS model” and “by the downstream model engine and using the FEATS model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“determining one or more transformed static features by applying one or more transformation functions to each temporally static feature”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses applying transformations to data.
“wherein generating the one or more static feature vectors is based on the one or more transformed static features”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating feature vectors from transformed data.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“by a temporally static feature engine and using the FEATS model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by a temporally static feature engine and using the FEATS model” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving a set of hyperparameters”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“by the communications hardware”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (communication hardware) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the set of hyperparameters comprises: a number of feature attention heads to be included in the FEATS model, a number of network layers to be included in each feature attention head, a number of network nodes for each network layer to be included in each feature attention head, an activation function to be included in each feature attention head, a width of a rolling window to be utilized by each feature attention head, a regularization parameter to be utilized by each feature attention head, or a combination thereof”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (hyperparameters) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “receiving a set of hyperparameters” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by the communications hardware” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “wherein the set of hyperparameters comprises: a number of feature attention heads to be included in the FEATS model, a number of network layers to be included in each feature attention head, a number of network nodes for each network layer to be included in each feature attention head, an activation function to be included in each feature attention head, a width of a rolling window to be utilized by each feature attention head, a regularization parameter to be utilized by each feature attention head, or a combination thereof” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (hyperparameters) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each feature attention head is configured to attend to a subset of the one or more temporal feature time points of the entity input data object”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (attention model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein each feature attention head is configured to attend to a subset of the one or more temporal feature time points of the entity input data object” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 7, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 8, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 10, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 2 and 11, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 2 and 11.
Regarding Claim 21:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 3 and 12, Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 3 and 12.
Regarding Claim 21:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 13, Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim, B., Arik, S. O., Loeff, N., & Pfister, T. (2020). Temporal Fusion Transformers for Interpretable Multi-horizon Time Series Forecasting. arXiv [Stat.ML]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09363 – we introduce the Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) – a novel attention based architecture which combines high-performance multi-horizon forecasting with interpretable insights into temporal dynamics
US 20170364803 A1 – calculate a future behavioral data and identify a relative causal impact of external factors affecting the data
US 20200410355 A1 – Methods and systems for explainable machine learning
US 11861317 B1 – Ensemble-based Machine Learning Characterization Of Human-machine Dialog
Marília Barandas, Duarte Folgado, Letícia Fernandes, Sara Santos, Mariana Abreu, Patrícia Bota, Hui Liu, Tanja Schultz, Hugo Gamboa, TSFEL: Time Series Feature Extraction Library, SoftwareX, Volume 11, 2020, 100456, ISSN 2352-7110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100456. – a Python package entitled Time Series Feature Extraction Library (TSFEL), which computes over 60 different features extracted across temporal, statistical and spectral domains.
Fan, C., Zhang, Y., Pan, Y., Li, X., Zhang, C., Yuan, R., … Huang, H. (2019). Multi-Horizon Time Series Forecasting with Temporal Attention Learning. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2527–2535. Presented at the Anchorage, AK, USA. doi:10.1145/3292500.3330662 – a novel data-driven approach for solving multi-horizon probabilistic forecasting tasks that predicts the full distribution of a time series on future horizons
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights