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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 3/25/26, Applicant amended claims 21-24, 26-28, 34-36, and 38-40, canceled no claims, and added no new clams. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 21, 34, and 39 are objected to because of the following informality: the fourth limitation in each claim recites “receive, from a user via the graphical user interface, a user input comprising an adjustment to at least one block of the plurality of blocks of a DAG of the plurality of DAGs representing the timeseries processing workflow file” but the second limitation recites “the plurality of DAGs corresponding to the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files,” so “the plurality of DAGs representing the timeseries processing workflow file” lacks antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 21, 34, and 39 each recites generating a plurality of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), the plurality of DAGs corresponding to the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files, wherein the plurality of DAGs include a plurality of blocks representing the plurality of objects; applying the adjustment to at least one object in the timeseries processing workflow file that corresponds to the first DAG; and executing the DAG by: tagging the first object to identify the first programming language and the second object to identify the second programming language. Generating a plurality of DAGs, applying an adjustment to an object, and tagging an object to identify a programming language are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Executing the DAG is a mental process of running a program that uses the computer as a tool. Each claim recites additional elements of receive a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that process a plurality of raw data timeseries of measurable data points, the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files comprising a plurality of objects defined in a plurality of different programming languages, wherein a timeseries processing workflow file of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files includes a first object defined in a first programming language to process timeseries data and a second object defined in a second programming language to process timeseries data, which is a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; cause a user device to display a graphical user interface comprising the plurality of DAGs, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity; receive, from a user via the graphical user interface, a user input comprising an adjustment to at least one block of the plurality of blocks of a DAG of the plurality of DAGs representing the timeseries processing workflow file, which is a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; transmitting the first object to a first execution engine configured for the first programming language, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and responsive to the first execution engine completing execution, transmitting the second object to a second execution engine with a result of the execution of the first execution engine, the second execution engine configured for the second programming language, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 21 recites one or more processors and one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon which are generic components of a computer. Claim 39 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media, which are also generic components of a computer. Per Applicant’s Remarks page 12, Examiner notes support for these amended limitations from specification paragraphs 0312-0315 and 0329, which are paragraphs 0350-0353 and 0367 in Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0394052, respectively. While Examiner found support for the functions of tagging to identify a programming language and transmitting objects to an execution engine in each of the programming languages in these paragraphs, Examiner did not find discussion of an improvement to a technology involving these functions. The claim steps do not recite an improvement made in any technology or to the function of a computer in these paragraphs as required MPEP 2106.04(d) and Examiner does not believe the claims recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claim limitations as a whole, each of the receiving steps, transmitting steps, and the display step amount to sending or receiving data over a network (specification paragraphs 0102, 0106, figures 3 and 4) which are routine and conventional activities per list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more processors, one or more memory devices, and one or more non-transitory computer readable media are still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 22 and 35 each recites wherein the timeseries processing workflow file comprises a fault detection rule, wherein the fault detection rule is a user defined fault rule that indicates whether one or more values of raw data samples representing a physical building condition are fault values (a fault detection rule is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to process the raw data timeseries using the timeseries processing workflow file to generate one or more fault timeseries, the one or more fault timeseries being generated in response to a determination, based on the user defined fault rule, that the one or more values of the raw data samples representing the physical building condition are the fault values (determining is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 23 and 36 each recites optimize the timeseries processing workflow file by combining two or more individual timeseries processing operations of the first timeseries processing workflow file into a combined timeseries processing operation (combining data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claims 24 and 37 each recites identifying multiple timeseries processing workflow files of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that require one or more shared input timeseries (identifying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and combining the identified multiple timeseries processing workflows into a single timeseries processing workflow (combining data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 25 recites wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to generate the timeseries prior to a request for the timeseries (generating data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 26, 38, and 40 each recites one or more input blocks representing one or more input timeseries to which the timeseries processing workflow file applies; one or more functional blocks representing the plurality of objects in the timeseries processing workflow file; and one or more output blocks representing one or more derived data timeseries generated by executing the plurality of objects with the one or more input timeseries (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 27 recites receive the user input, the user input comprising the adjustment to at least one of the one or more input blocks, the one or more functional blocks, or the one or more output blocks (receiving data across a network is routine and conventional per list in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II); determine a change to the timeseries processing workflow file based on the user input (determining is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and automatically apply the change to the timeseries processing workflow file in response to receiving the user input (applying data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 28 recites wherein the first timeseries processing workflow comprises: an indication of one or more input timeseries to which the first timeseries processing workflow applies (an indication is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); a particular sequence of timeseries processing operations (data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and an indication of one or more derived data timeseries generated by applying the particular sequence of timeseries processing operations to the one or more input timeseries (an indication is data and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 29 recites a first sequence of timeseries processing operations is a dynamically defined sequence of timeseries processing operations (timeseries operations are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and a second sequence of timeseries processing operations is a predefined sequence of timeseries processing operations (timeseries operations are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 30 recites wherein the one or more input timeseries comprise at least one of: the raw data timeseries; or the one or more derived data timeseries (timeseries are data and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 31 recites detect a change in the raw data timeseries or the derived data timeseries (detecting is determining and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and process a changed data timeseries in response to detecting the change (processing data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 32 recites wherein processing the changed data timeseries in response to detecting the change comprises: identifying one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflows that apply to the changed data timeseries (identifying is determining and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); identifying any other timeseries indicated as required inputs to the identified one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflows (identifying is determining and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and processing the changed data timeseries, the other timeseries indicated as required inputs, and the identified one or more of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files that apply to the changed data timeseries (processing data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 33 recites receive a plurality of derived data samples generated by processing the changed data timeseries; and generate one or more particular derived data sample timeseries comprising the plurality of the derived data samples.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 21-28, 30-34, 36, and 39-40 for nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,755,604 in view of Spivey, Applicant’s amendments overcome both the ‘604 patent’s and Spivey’s teachings the these rejections are withdrawn. Regarding rejections of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 14-15 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the claim 21 recites amended limitations "a timeseries processing workflow file of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files includes a first object defined in a first programming language to process timeseries data and a second object defined in a second programming language to process timeseries data" and "execute the DAG by" "tagging the first object to identify the first programming language and the second object to identify the second programming language," "transmitting the first object to a first execution engine configured for the first programming language," and "responsive to the first execution engine completing execution, transmitting the second object to a second execution engine with a result of the execution of the first execution engine, the second execution engine configured for the second programming language," and that the claims do not recite abstract ideas. Examiner disagrees and notes that "a timeseries processing workflow file of the plurality of timeseries processing workflow files includes a first object defined in a first programming language to process timeseries data and a second object defined in a second programming language to process timeseries data" describes data in a timeseries processing workflow file and that the action in this limitation (receiving a plurality of timeseries processing workflow files) is not an abstract idea but an additional element as identified in the rejections above. “Tagging the first object to identify the first programming language and the second object to identify the second programming language," is recited broadly and uses a computer as a tool and is thus a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, for example by adding a tag to an object as written on a piece of paper. Examiner notes that "responsive to the first execution engine completing execution, transmitting the second object to a second execution engine with a result of the execution of the first execution engine, the second execution engine configured for the second programming language" is also an additional element as identified in the rejections above. Applicant also asserts “similar to the method for loading BIOS, claim 21 does not recite an abstract idea, but instead recites elements to execute, via multiple execution engines, a DAG where objects of the timeseries processing workflow file corresponding to the DAG are defined in different programming languages.” Examiner disagrees and notes executing the DAG, even when the engines used for executing are in different programming languages, still recites executing broadly without details of what actions the executing entails and uses a computer as a tool for the executing and is a mental process.
On pages 15-18 of his Remarks Applicant discusses the support for the amendments in the specification and excerpts paragraphs 0350, 0353, and 0367 (Pre-Grant Publication paragraph numbers) and describes the improvement in a technology as “a timeseries processing workflow file can include objects defined in different programming languages, and execution of a DAG corresponding to the timeseries processing workflow file can be enabled by the system tagging each object to identify the programming language, and transmitting the objects in sequence to execution engines configured for specific programming languages.” Paragraphs 0350 and 0353 do not discuss an improvement occurring in any particular technology from including objects in different programming languages and by tagging objects for different programming languages. Examiner notes paragraph 0367 describes “in an IoT based system, as described below, analysis, classification and indexing of IoT data can depend significantly on the ability of the system to recognize the relevant information in multiple data streams, and fuse the recognized data” and “fusing the recognized data may transform the collective semantics of the individual data received from multiple devices into semantics consistent with the perception of the real world. However, fusion of the recognized information is difficult between different media and data types.” Examiner notes an Internet of Things environment is not claimed so, while this paragraph discusses a difficulty in the prior art of fusing recognized information from multiple devices, no such improvement is recited in the claim. The recited additional elements are broad and do not integrate the recited mental processes into a practical application. On pages 18-21 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2B and asserts the amendments are not well-understood and conventional activity and claim 21 presents a technology-based solution that overcomes disadvantages of prior art systems. Examiner disagrees and did not see anything in the specification that indicates that the function of tagging for programming languages and executing DAGs in different programming languages addressed or overcame any drawbacks in the prior art. The additional elements are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II as shown in the rejections above. If a person of ordinary skill in the art wanted to execute DAGs in different programming languages, then at least taking the broad steps of tagging objects in DAGs for multiple programming languages and then executing said DAGs in those multiple programming languages would be a conventional way to do it, which is claimed. Thus Examiner does not believe these claims recite significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Conclusion
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 5/20/26
Prosecution Insights