DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has obviated the remaining claim objections. Therefore, those objections are withdrawn (but see new grounds of objection below).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “metadata that includes” should be “metadata that include” and the word “multivariate” should either consistently include a hyphen or consistently exclude it. The dependent claims are objected to for dependency on the objected-to independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “common” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “common” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of “commonness” to detected events the dimensions must be to qualify as “common,” nor what criteria are used to determine whether they are “common”.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected hereunder are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
[G]roup[ing] [a] plurality of time-varying data points according to at least one root cause event associated with each time-varying data point of the plurality of time-varying data points: This limitation could encompass mentally organizing the data points into groups.
[D]etermin[ing] at least one root cause event associated with each anomaly record of the plurality of anomaly records: This limitation could encompass the mental determination of a root cause event associated with each anomaly record.
[G]enerating … at least one multi-variate event record for the at least one root cause event, the at least one event record linking each time-varying data point associated with the at least one root cause event, wherein the at least one multi-variate event record comprises a plurality of variables of a plurality of dimensions based at least in part on a merging of the at least one variable of the dimension of each univariate event observation associated with the at least one root cause event; wherein the at least one multi-variate event record links to each univariate event observation record and to the corresponding time-varying data points: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of an event record linking data points with a root cause event.
[R]eplac[ing] each univariate event observation associated with the at least one root cause event with the at least one multivariate event record and linking the multivariate event record to the corresponding univariate event observation records using [data] that include[] associations between variables and dimensions common to detected events: This limitation could encompass mentally replacing the univariate event observations with the multivariate event records and mentally forming a link between the multivariate and univariate event records.
[A]pplying … at least one multi-variate anomaly recognition model to the at least one multi-variate event record to output an anomaly determination for the at least one root cause event based on the associations between variables and dimensions across the plurality of event observations associated with the at least one multi-variate event record: This limitation could encompass the mental application of an anomaly recognition model mentally to determine an anomaly based on the associations between variables and dimensions across the event observations. Note that, because the claim does not require that the anomaly recognition model be a machine learning model, the model may be a mental model.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that certain limitations are performed by “at least one processor”, a “detection model”, and an “association machine learning model [that] comprises a plurality of trained association parameters that are trained according to a respective plurality of independent event training data sets to identify the at least one root cause event”, that certain limitations are performed “automatically”, that the data being manipulated are ”metadata”, and that the replacement of the observations is performed as part of “updating … at least one event database”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic classes of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claim further recites “receiving, … in real-time in response to receiving a plurality of time-varying data points by the at least one detection model, a plurality of event observations associated with at least one data point of a plurality of time-varying data points; wherein each time-varying data point of the plurality of time-varying data points comprises at least one variable of at least one dimension”. However, this limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of step 2A prong 2, with the exception that the receiving limitation, in addition to reciting insignificant extra-solution activity, also recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of performing anomaly detection and analysis. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “receiving, by the at least one processor, a visualization request from at least one computing device via an associated application programming interface (API) target set.” However, this limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites “receiving, by the at least one processor, a visualization request from at least one computing device via an associated application programming interface (API) target set.” However, this limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “receiving, by the at least one processor, an annotation to the event record by a user of at least one user from a computing device of the at least one computing device; wherein the annotation comprises a modification to a root cause type”. However, this limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. However, this limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “causing to display, by the at least one processor, an indication of the respective annotation in a visualization of the plurality of event observations on a screen of the at least one computing device associated with the at least one user.” However, this limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites “causing to display, by the at least one processor, an indication of the respective annotation in a visualization of the plurality of event observations on a screen of the at least one computing device associated with the at least one user.” However, this limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia, “identifying … a set of related event observations associated with an at-least-twice-occurred event based on an association model”. This limitation could encompass the use of a (mental) association model to identify related event observations mentally.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the identification is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the association model is “trained to identify the at-least-twice-occurred event using the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites that the identification is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the association model is “trained to identify the at-least-twice-occurred event using the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia, “determining … an anomaly classification for the set of related event observations when the set of related event observations is identified based at least in part on a classification model”. This limitation could encompass the use of a (mental) classification model to identify related event observations and the use of those related event observations to determine an anomaly classification mentally.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the determination is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the classification model is “trained to recognize the anomaly classification using the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation in the set of related event observations”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites that the determination is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the classification model is “trained to recognize the anomaly classification using the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation in the set of related event observations”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 8
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia, “determining … a root cause type of an event associated with the set of related event observations when the anomaly classification for the set of related event observations is determined based at least in part on a root cause model”. This limitation could encompass the mental determination of the event using a mental root-cause model.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the determination is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the root cause model is “trained to recognize the root cause type using the anomaly classification of the set of related event observations and the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation in the set of related event observations”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites that the determination is performed “by the at least one processor” and that the root cause model is “trained to recognize the root cause type using the anomaly classification of the set of related event observations and the at least one variable and the at least one dimension of each time-varying data point associated with each event observation in the set of related event observations”. However, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 9
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that “the plurality of time-varying data points comprise[s] financial transaction data”. However, this is a mere statement that the field of use of the method is the analysis of financial transaction data. MPEP § 2106.05(h).1
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites that “the at least one data set comprise financial transaction data”. However, this is a mere statement that the field of use of the method is the analysis of financial transaction data. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 10
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “generating, by the at least one processor, an event management graphical user interface (GUI) to enable a user to manage events linking one or more event observations of the plurality of event observations; wherein the event management GUI comprises: an event explorer view depicting each event observations of the plurality of event observation in a time-varying representation; an event selection prompt selectable from the explorer view to enable user selection of a previously recorded event linking the one or more event observations of the plurality of event observations; and an event modification prompt selectable from the event selection prompt to modify the event linking the one or more event observations; and wherein the event modification prompt comprises user selectable event details comprising: i) an event name, ii) an event description, and iii) an event classification.” However, this limitation is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites “generating, by the at least one processor, an event management graphical user interface (GUI) to enable a user to manage events linking one or more event observations of the plurality of event observations; wherein the event management GUI comprises: an event explorer view depicting each event observations of the plurality of event observation in a time-varying representation; an event selection prompt selectable from the explorer view to enable user selection of a previously recorded event linking the one or more event observations of the plurality of event observations; and an event modification prompt selectable from the event selection prompt to modify the event linking the one or more event observations; and wherein the event modification prompt comprises user selectable event details comprising: i) an event name, ii) an event description, and iii) an event classification.” However, this limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claims 11-13, 15-18, 20
Step 1: The claims recite a system comprising a data store and a processor; therefore, they are directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the same judicial exceptions as in claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10, respectively, except insofar as these claims recite “at least one data store configured to store at least one data set; at least one processor, configured to [perform the method]”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10, respectively, except insofar as these claims recite “at least one data store configured to store at least one data set; at least one processor, configured to [perform the method]”. However, this is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 19
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exceptions as in claim 11.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that “the at least one processor is further configured to receive an annotation to the event record by a user of at least one user from a computing device of the at least one computing device; wherein the annotation comprises a removal of a selected event observation from a set of related event observations.” However, this limitation recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim further recites that “the at least one processor is further configured to receive an annotation to the event record by a user of at least one user from a computing device of the at least one computing device; wherein the annotation comprises a removal of a selected event observation from a set of related event observations.” However, this limitation recites the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended are eligible under 35 USC § 101 because (a) they are allegedly directed to an improvement in the technical field of anomaly detection that is disclosed by the specification and reflected in the claims themselves, and (b) they are allegedly, like the claims at issue in Ex parte Desjardins, directed to a particular solution of a technical problem of machine learning-based anomaly detection. Remarks at 9-13.
Regarding (a), a significant portion of the limitations that Applicant cites as evidence of integration into a practical application are in fact parts of the judicial exception itself. Examiner reminds Applicant that the inventive concept cannot come from the judicial exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I). Among the highlighted portions of the independent claims, only the recitation of automaticity and use of a machine learning model, databases, and metadata qualify as additional elements, and those limitations merely amount to an instruction to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer programmed with generic classes of computer software. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding (b), Desjardins is inapposite. Desjardins explicitly involved an improvement to a training algorithm designed to overcome the specific technical problem of catastrophic forgetting, and the specification explained how the claimed subject matter overcame this problem. On the other hand, the instant claims are not directed to an improvement in the machine learning itself, but rather use machine learning purely as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea of anomaly detection. Any purported improvement is purely to the abstract idea and not to the machine learning that happens to implement it.
Conclusion
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 RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 Relatedly, claim 18 recites that “the at least one data set comprise[s] transaction data representative of merchant transactions”, which is also a mere statement of the field of use of the judicial exception.