DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination based on the application filed on April 23, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
This action is made non-Final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
FIG. 1 item “100” is not providing a label to any entity. For example, item “123” is a label provided to the entity “2nd INPUT”. Per Para. 0041 of the specification, item “100” should be pointing to the “system”.
FIG. 1 “/change/ 136” should be “change magnitude 136” as seen in Para. 0048 or similar as supported by the specification.
FIG. 3 “(new milk bought fridge)” should be “(new milk bought)”.
FIG. 3 fails to show where position “now” is as described in the specification Para. 0039. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. 37 CFR 1.83(a) and MPEP § 608.02(d).
FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 do not have axis labels or units.
FIG. 11 “Github” should be “GitHub”. Additionally, the trademark names and terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms (see objection to the specification below.)
The 2nd derivation of FIG. 6 appears to be an exact replica of the 1st derivation of FIG. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of a n amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 0067, which cites “CB*”, should be “CBP”.
Para 0067, which cites “Trigger” should be “trigger”.
The acronyms of “CBP”, “ODBC”, “PAL”, “API”, “ATI”, and “json” as located in should be spelled out.
Para. 0067, which cites “APP”, should be “ABAP”.
The use of the terms “SAP”, “SAP S/4 HANA”, “ABAP”, “DVD”, and “Github”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with a previous recitations. For example, claim 2, “A method” in Ln. 1, is improper because there has been a
previous recitation of “A method” in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “A method” in claim 2 will be
interpreted as “ The method”. Claims 3-9, having similar limitations of claim 2, are also objected. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 6, which cites “an in-memory database engine” in Ln. 4, should be “the in-memory database engine”.
Claim 8, which cites “a capacity” in Ln. 4-5, should be “the capacity”.
Claim 11, which cites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” in Ln. 1, should be “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. Claims 12-14, having similar limitations of claim 2, are also objected.
Claim 16, which cites “A computer system” in Ln. 1, should be “The computer system”. Claims 17-20, having similar limitations of claim 2, are also objected.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with no previous recitations. For example, claim 6, which cites “the non-transitory computer readable medium” in Ln. 2, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the non-transitory computer readable medium”. For the purpose of examination, “the non-transitory computer readable medium” will be
interpreted as “the non-transitory computer readable storage medium”. Similarly, regarding claim 6, it is also object to under the same rationale for: “the in-memory database” in Ln. 4, which should be “an in-memory database”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 10-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer system and fall within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 15: The limitations of “executing a rule upon the first candidate change point to calculate a first score, the rule comprising, a primary criterion for a change direction relative to the natural trend, a secondary criterion for a change position within the time series data, and a tertiary criterion for a change magnitude” and “executing the rule upon the second candidate change point to calculate a second score”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by evaluating the point’s degree of change in the following: a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function, its position in the time series function near other change points, and the magnitude of the change for both a point that occurred earlier in time and a point that occurred later in time. Additionally, the limitation of “comparing the first score to the second score to select the first candidate change point or the second candidate change point as a determined change point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally compare or draw with a pen and paper the score value of the earlier point with the score value of the later point and choose the point which has the higher score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Claims 1, 10, and 15: The limitations of “executing a rule upon the first candidate change point to calculate a first score, the rule comprising, a primary criterion for a change direction relative to the natural trend, a secondary criterion for a change position within the time series data, and a tertiary criterion for a change magnitude” and “executing the rule upon the second candidate change point to calculate a second score”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using adding up the point’s degree of change in the following: a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function, its position in the time series function near other change points, and the magnitude of the change for both a point that occurred earlier in time and a point that occurred later in time (see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 10, and 15 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
1) “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying a computer program for performing a method”, and “A computer system comprising: one or more processors; a software program, executable on said computer system, the software program configured to cause an in-memory database engine of an in-memory database to: receive from the in-memory database” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element
2) receiving time series data exhibiting a natural trend”, “receiving time series data having a natural trend comprising an increase to reach a capacity”, “receiving a first candidate change point in the time series data, the first candidate change point comprising an earlier time and a first value”; “receiving a second candidate change point in the time series data, the second candidate change point comprising a later time and a second value”, and “storing the determined change point in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data storing activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 10, and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Regarding claim 2, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises a first function to amplify an effect of the primary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by evaluating the point’s degree of change for a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function and by scaling this change exponentially upward to increase its effect in the score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises a first function to amplify an effect of the primary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using the point’s degree of change for a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function where this change is scaled exponentially upward to increase its effect in the score (see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 3, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises a second function to reduce an effect of the secondary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by evaluating the point’s degree of change for a change of its position in the time series function near other change points and by scaling this change exponentially downward to decrease its effect in the score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises a second function to reduce an effect of the secondary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using the point’s degree of change for a change of its position in the time series function near other change points where this change is scaled exponentially downward to decrease its effect in the score(see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 17, they recite additional limitations of “wherein: the rule comprises a first parameter for the primary criterion; the rule comprises a second parameter for the secondary criterion; the rule comprises a third parameter for the tertiary criterion” and “optimizing the first parameter, the second parameter, and the third parameter”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by creating parameters for the point’s degree of change in the following: a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function, its position in the time series function near other change points, and the magnitude of the change and increase the scaling and weights that each of these parameters effect the score to optimize the parameters (Para. 0035 states “The hyperparameter optimization may involve a set of time series where the best change point is already known (e.g., selected manually by a human expert.)”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4, 12, and 17, they recite additional limitations of “wherein: the rule comprises a first parameter for the primary criterion; the rule comprises a second parameter for the secondary criterion; the rule comprises a third parameter for the tertiary criterion” and “optimizing the first parameter, the second parameter, and the third parameter”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using adding up parameters that signify the point’s degree of change in the following: a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function, its position in the time series function near other change points, and the magnitude of the change and increase the scaling and weights that each of these parameters effect the score to optimize the parameters (see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the first candidate change point and the second candidate change point are generated by derivation followed by clustering”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper potential change points by selecting consecutive data points and performing a second derivative on each point and binning the second derivatives based on their values.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the first candidate change point and the second candidate change point are generated by derivation”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating potential change points can be accomplished using adding up parameters that signify the point’s degree of change in the following: a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function, its position in the time series function near other change points, and the magnitude of the change and increase the scaling and weights that each of these parameters effect the score to optimize the parameters (see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 18, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the in-memory database engine is further configured” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein: the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises an in-memory database engine also storing the time series data; and the rule is executed by an in-memory database engine of the in-memory database” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data storing activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “referencing the determined change point to calculate a predicted outcome by excluding time series data preceding the determined change point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper extrapolate a future value based on a trendline provided from the selected change point and another point after the selected change point to extrapolate a future point in time.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, they recite an additional limitation of “referencing the determined change point to calculate a predicted outcome by excluding time series data preceding the determined change point”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a prediction value can be accomplished by extrapolating from the change point selected to other point in the time series in the trend to generate a future prediction value (see Para. 0026, 0050, 0057, and 0083 that recite using extrapolation for predicting and forecasting the data point).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein the in-memory database engine is further configured” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein: the natural trend comprises an increase, and the predicted outcome is a time that a capacity is reached; or the natural trend comprises a decrease, and the predicted outcome is a time that a capacity is exhausted”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper extrapolate a future value based on an upward trendline provided from the selected change point and another point after the selected change point to extrapolate a future point in time to show when a capacity is reached.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 20, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein: the natural trend comprises an increase, and the predicted outcome is a time that a capacity is reached; or the natural trend comprises a decrease, and the predicted outcome is a time that a capacity is exhausted”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a prediction value can be accomplished by extrapolating from the change point selected to other point in the time series in a upward trendline to generate a future prediction value where a capacity is reaches (see Para. 0026, 0050, 0057, and 0083 that recite using extrapolation for predicting and forecasting the data point).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional element recitation of “wherein: the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises an in-memory database also storing the time series data; and an in-memory database engine of the in-memory database is configured to calculate the predicted outcome” which is merely an insignificant extra-solution data storing activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, this claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, this claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus this claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises: a first function to amplify an effect of the primary criterion; and a second function to reduce an effect of the secondary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by evaluating the point’s degree of change for a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function and by scaling this change exponentially upward to increase its effect in the score, and a person can mentally determine or draw with a pen and paper a score for a point identified as a change point by evaluating the point’s degree of change for a change of its position in the time series function near other change points and by scaling this change exponentially downward to decrease its effect in the score.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, claims 11 and 16, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the rule comprises: a first function to amplify an effect of the primary criterion; and a second function to reduce an effect of the secondary criterion”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using the point’s degree of change for a change of direction as compared to a trend of a time series function where this change is scaled exponentially upward to increase its effect in the score (see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score), and calculating a score for potential change points can be accomplished using the point’s degree of change for a change of its position in the time series function near other change points where this change is scaled exponentially downward to decrease its effect in the score(see Para. 0032-0033 for the equation used to calculate the score.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 10, and 15, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Thus, the claims overcome the prior art of record.
The limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15 include evaluating change points in a trend of time series data by selecting the change point that has a score based on a change in tend direction, position in the time series, and magnitude change in combination with the all of the remaining limitations. The closest prior art references of record, as listed below, alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including evaluating change points in a trend of time series data by selecting the change point that has a score based on a change in tend direction, position in the time series, and magnitude change in combination with the all of the remaining limitations:
Verzelen, Nicolas, Magalie Fromont, Matthieu Lerasle, and Patricia Reynaud-Bouret. "Optimal Change-Point Detection and Localization." arXiv e-prints (2020): arXiv-2010 teaches the detecting change points and using a penalized least-squares minimization to add penalty terms to change points based on likelihood of change point estimator, spacing between change points, and variation for the norm for verification of a model,
Callejo Peñalba, Carlos. "Noise detection pattern recognition in a univariate time series case." (2019) teaches determining change points using a second derivative and clustering to score and find time series patterns, and
Aminikhanghahi, Samaneh, and Diane J. Cook. "A survey of methods for time series change point detection." Knowledge and information systems 51, no. 2 (2017): 339-367 teaches generating scores to determine the effectiveness of a change point detection algorithm based on various weights of importance.
Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 15, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 would be allowable because they are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 15, respectively.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kachouie, Nezamoddini N., and Armin Schwartzman. "Non-parametric estimation of a single inflection point in noisy observed signal." Journal of Electrical and Electronic Systems 2, no. 2 (2013) et al. teaches a method for inflection point detection and evaluations the inflection points based on a scoring of the time series bandwidth.
Meng, Yinfeng, Jiye Liang, Fuyuan Cao, and Yijun He. "A new distance with derivative information for functional k-means clustering algorithm." Information Sciences 463 (2018): 166-185 et al. teaches using derivative information to determine trend characteristic differences in time series data and performing clustering.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights