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
This Office Action is sent in response to Application’s Communication received on 06/05/2023 for application number 18/195197. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawing, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Claims (1-11), (12-16) and (17-20) are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (1-11), (12-16) and (17-20) are directed to allowable subject matter if the 101 rejection is addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims (1-11), (12-16) and (17-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims (1-11), (12-16) and (17-20) are drawn to a method each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1.
obtaining time series data;
obtaining an indication that an anomalous event occurred within a timeframe covered by the time series data, in which the indication is correlated with the anomalous event and is received at an unpredictable time after the anomalous event and represents an imprecise label;
generating, via a semi-supervised labeler model, a first probability distribution over time representative of a first timeframe during which the anomalous event occurred within the time series data;
generating a second probability distribution over time representative of a second timeframe based on the imprecise label;
and coupling the automatic semi-supervised labeler model to a machine learning model via a feedback loop corresponding to a loss function to determine a more precise label, relative to the imprecise label, as to an actual time at which the anomalous event occurred.
The limitation of “obtaining an indication that an anomalous event occurred within a timeframe covered by the time series data, in which the indication is correlated with the anomalous event and is received at an unpredictable time after the anomalous event and represents an imprecise label…” is defined as concepts that can practically be performed in mind, or human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” language, the claim encompasses gathering, observing and evaluating the time series for the purpose detecting anomalous event with imprecise label. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “generating, via a semi-supervised labeler model, a first probability distribution over time representative of a first timeframe during which the anomalous event occurred within the time series data…” is defined as concepts that can practically be performed in mind, or human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” language, the claim encompasses evaluating the timeframe during which the anomalous event with imprecise label occurred, this step full under observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “generating a second probability distribution over time representative of a second timeframe based on the imprecise label…” is defined as concepts that can practically be performed in mind, or human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” language, the same rational applies as the previous limitation, the claim encompasses evaluating the timeframe during which the anomalous event with imprecise label occurred, this step full under observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “coupling the automatic semi-supervised labeler model to a machine learning model via a feedback loop corresponding to a loss function to determine a more precise label, relative to the imprecise label, as to an actual time at which the anomalous event occurred…” is defined as concepts that can practically be performed in mind, or human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor”, “a memory” and “medium” language, the claim encompasses evaluating the time series for the precise label by matching it with the actual time at which the imprecise labelling occurred, this step full under observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation the claim recites a mental process.
The same rational applies to claims 12 and 17.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as “obtaining time series data …” and “a semi-supervised labeler…” which is recited at a high level, the element is merely reciting the words that pertain to a generic computer (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The “a semi-supervised labeler” step is an additional element amount to merely Instructions to Apply an Exception. The additional element amount to merely words “apply it” and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, therefore; the addition of element does not amount to an inventive concept. The “obtaining” step is an additional element, it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it encompasses mere data gathering.
Dependent claims (2-11), (13-16) and (18-20) fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims (2-11), (13-16) and (18-20) are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
The “obtaining time series data …” and “a semi-supervised labeler…” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The “obtaining” step is merely gathering and displaying data, therefore it is insignificant extra-solution activity. Both steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to predicting next commands that is recited at high level of generality using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The same rational applies to claims 12 and claim 17.
Dependent claims (2-11), (13-16) and (18-20) fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims (2-11), (13-16) and (18-20) are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN MRABI whose telephone number is (571)272-8875. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-5pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASSAN MRABI/Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights