DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority/Benefit
3. This application claims priority benefit from Greek Application No. 202201000789 filed 09/27/2022.
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 patient therefor subject to the conditions and requirements of this title,
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within a least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to software per se. Specifically, "processors" as entities unto themselves are considered to be software. Correction of this issue can be made by substituting "computer processors" for the term "processor".
5. Claims 2. - 9. are claims dependent from Claim 1. and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 for similar reasons as those noted above since such claims do not cure the rejection of independent Claim 1.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically:
1. Mathematical concepts: generating implicit neural representations with embedded values and weights
2. Mental processes: receiving information, generating representations based on that information, and making predictions
3. Certain methods of organizing human activity: organizing and analyzing data relating to event sequences
The claim recites using mathematical relationships and formulas (neural representations with embeddings and weights) to predict information from event sequences. These are mathematical concepts and mental processes that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, at least in principle.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into Practical Application The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim amount to no more than:
1. Generic computer implementation: “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely provides generic computer components to perform generic computer functions (receiving, generating, using/predicting)
2. Insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving information and outputting predictions are merely data gathering and insignificant post-solution activity
The claim does not recite:
An improvement to computer functionality or technology
A particular machine or transformation
Other meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
Step 2B: Significantly More. The claim does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more because:
1. Generic processor: Reciting “at least one processor” to perform the steps is merely instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components
2. Well-understood, routine, conventional activity: Using a generic processor to perform mathematical calculations and data processing steps is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
3. No technical improvement specified: The claim does not specify how the neural representation is generated, what makes it “interpretable,” or how it improves upon existing technology
7. Independent Claims 10. and 19. have similar limitations to that of Claim 1. and are rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons as noted above. Dependent Claims 2. - 9., 11. -18. and 20 do not correct the related independent claim from which it depends and in consequence they are rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons as noted above. Claims 9. and 18. begin to create practical applications but fall short in Step 2A, Prong Two of providing an improvement to computer functionality or technology.
8. Claim Amendment Strategies to properly respond to the above rejections are informally provided below as examples for applicant to consider in concept but must be consistent within the metes and bounds of the specification.
Option 1: Amend to Include Technical Improvements
Add specific technical details about how the method improves computer functionality or solves a technical problem. Example amendment:
Claim 1. A method for generating an interpretable time series
that reduces computational memory requirements by at least 50%
compared to conventional neural network models, the method being
implemented by at least one processor configured with
[specific architecture details], the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, first information
that relates to an event sequence comprising [specific data structure];
generating, by the at least one processor based on the first
information, an implicit neural representation of the event
sequence using [specific algorithm/technique] that enables
continuous-domain querying without storing discrete time points,
wherein the implicit neural representation includes a plurality
of embedded values and a corresponding plurality of weights
structured as [specific structure]; and
using the implicit neural representation to predict, with
improved accuracy of at least X% over conventional methods,
at least one item of second information that relates to the
event sequence and is not included in the first information.
Option 2: Tie to Specific Technical Application. Amend the claim to specify a particular technical field or application: Example:
1. Add: “wherein the event sequence comprises medical sensor data from continuous glucose monitoring”
2. Add: “wherein the method is used to predict equipment failures in industrial machinery based on vibration sensor data”
3. Add specific technical details about the sensors, data types, or real-world application
Option 3: Add Unconventional Processing Steps. Include specific, unconventional steps that go beyond generic data processing. Example additions:
1. Specific neural architecture details (e.g., “using coordinate-based multilayer perceptrons with sinusoidal activation functions”)
2. Novel training methodology
3. Specific transformation techniques
4. Particular data structures or memory management techniques
Option 4: Argue for Practical Application. If applicable, provide evidence and argument that:
1. The specification demonstrates improved computer performance (speed, memory, accuracy)
2. The method solves a problem unique to computer technology
3. The claim provides a particular solution to a problem in the software arts
Option 5: Combine with Apparatus Claims. Consider adding dependent claims or separate apparatus claims that recite:
1. Specific hardware configurations
2. Particular sensor arrangements
3. Specialized processing units (GPUs, TPUs, neuromorphic chips)
8. KEY CONSIDERATIONS.
What the Examiner wants to see:
1. Technical improvements to computer functionality
2. Specific implementations rather than high-level functional language
3. Solutions to technical problems, not just data analysis
4. Unconventional steps or combinations
What to avoid:
1. Merely adding “by a computer” to abstract concepts
2. Generic implementation language
3. Purely result-based functional claiming
4. General-purpose computer recitations
Supporting evidence consistent with the metes and bounds of the specification to provide:
1. Specification passages showing technical advantages
2. Declarations explaining unconventional aspects
3. Comparative data showing improvements
4. Evidence that the approach is not well-known or routine
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph P. Hirl whose telephone number is (571)272-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am to 3:30 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.
10. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Director, Amy C. Johnson can be reached on 571-272-2238. 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/patentcenter 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.
/JOSEPH P HIRL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435