DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received 11/6/25. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 18 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
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, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 each recite the limitation “the one or more processors” multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that each of “the one or more processors” limitations could refer to any of the multiple “one or more processors” limitations within claims 1, 10, and 16.
The examiner suggests either having a single “one or more processors” in each of claims 1, 10, and 16 followed by only “the one or more processors” throughout the claims or to only use “one or more processors” without any “the one or more processors”. The examiner notes that dependent claims also use “one or more processors”, such as in dependent claim 2, and that should also be taken into account.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 16 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “analyzing, by one or more processors, a plurality of data blocks in first time series data to determine traits of respective data blocks”, “clustering, by one or more processors, the respective data blocks based on the traits of the respective data blocks and the reference data block to determine one or more target data blocks from the respective data blocks that belongs to a respective same cluster to the reference data block”, “simulating, by the one or more processors, for the respective data blocks, one or more abnormal points based on the traits of the respective data blocks, the simulating including determining an appropriate abnormal type, value, and an overall number of the one or more abnormal points to facilitate learning model identification of the one or more abnormal points”, and “evaluating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of data blocks including the at least one substituted abnormal data point using a plurality of different machine learning models trained with normal data points to determine anomalies” in claim 1, “analyzing a plurality of data blocks in first time series data to determine traits of respective data blocks”, “clustering, by one or more processors, the respective data blocks based on the traits of the respective data blocks and the reference data block to determine one or more target data blocks from the respective data blocks that belongs to a respective same cluster to the reference data block”, “simulating, for the respective data blocks, one or more abnormal points based on the traits of the respective data blocks, the simulating including determining an appropriate abnormal type, value, and an overall number of the one or more abnormal points to facilitate learning model identification of the one or more abnormal points”, and “evaluating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of data blocks including the at least one substituted abnormal data point using a plurality of different machine learning models trained with normal data points to determine anomalies” in claim 10, and “analyzing a plurality of data blocks in first time series data to determine traits of respective data blocks”, “clustering, by one or more processors, the respective data blocks based on the traits of the respective data blocks and the reference data block to determine one or more target data blocks from the respective data blocks that belongs to a respective same cluster to the reference data block”, “simulating, for the respective data blocks, one or more abnormal points based on the traits of the respective data blocks, the simulating including determining an appropriate abnormal type, value, and an overall number of the one or more abnormal points to facilitate learning model identification of the one or more abnormal points”, and “evaluating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of data blocks including the at least one substituted abnormal data point using a plurality of different machine learning models trained with normal data points to determine anomalies” in claim 16. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” in claim 1, “one or more processors” and “a memory” in claim 10, and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “one or more processors” in claim 16, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The examiner notes that “analyzing a plurality of data blocks in first time series data to determine traits of respective data blocks” involves subjective choices as to which traits are observed and how to label, list, and categorize those traits and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “clustering, by one or more processors, the respective data blocks based on the traits of the respective data blocks and the reference data block to determine one or more target data blocks from the respective data blocks that belongs to a respective same cluster to the reference data block” involves subjective choices as to how the data is clustered(organized) and which traits are used as a basis for the clustering and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment, “simulating for the respective data blocks, one or more abnormal points based on the traits of the respective data blocks, the simulating including determining an appropriate abnormal type, value, and an overall number of the one or more abnormal points to facilitate learning model identification of the one or more abnormal points” involves basic mathematical calculations that can be performed mentally and encompasses mathematical concepts and the claims also do not limit the plain meaning of “simulating” which includes any known method of simulation and encompass mental choices or evaluations and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and “evaluating the plurality of data blocks including the at least one substituted abnormal data point using a plurality of different machine learning models trained with normal data points to determine anomalies” involves subjective choices in the method of evaluation, model used for evaluation, and method or function used to determine anomalies and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements including “splitting the first time series data into the plurality of data blocks in sequence”, “identifying a set of abnormal points in second time series data and a reference data block located before the set of abnormal points”, “substituting at least one data point in the data blocks with the at least one abnormal point” and “selecting, based on the evaluating, an optimal one of the machine learning models that identifies the highest number of anomalies” in claims 1, 10, and 16 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0027-0043], fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2, 11, and 17 further describe the analyzing and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claims 4, 13, and 19 further describe the identification of abnormal points and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 describe the time series data and use of training and historical data to build the models and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim 9 lists abnormal types and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument (see p. 13-15 of remarks) that the claim as a whole is not directed to a judicial exception, because the claim cannot be "practically performed in the mind", the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that “Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind” and “In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). The meaning of this is that only a single limitation comprising a mental process within the claim is required under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test to proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. The examiner also notes that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The examiner notes that the analyzing, simulating, and evaluating limitations of the independent claims each comprise mental processes that are carried out on a generic computer and include the mental process concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The examiner notes that “analyzing a plurality of data blocks in first time series data to determine traits of respective data blocks” involves subjective choices as to which traits are observed and how to label, list, and categorize those traits and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “simulating for the respective data blocks, one or more abnormal points based on the traits of the respective data blocks” involves basic mathematical calculations that can be performed mentally and encompasses mathematical concepts and the claims also do not limit the plain meaning of “simulating” which includes any known method of simulation and encompass mental choices or evaluations and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and “evaluating the plurality of data blocks including the at least one substituted abnormal data point using a plurality of different machine learning models trained with normal data points to determine anomalies” involves subjective choices in the method of evaluation, model used for evaluation, and method or function used to determine anomalies and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
To further clarify, the examiner notes that the actual analysis is performed by a computer, but the thought process used in order to analyze the data blocks is a mental process that is carried out by generic computer and the clustering of data blocks is performed by a computer, but the thought process used to organize(cluster) the data blocks and the trait(s) used as reference for the clustering are the result of a mental process and implemented by a generic computer. The examiner notes this also applies to the thought processes used to carry out the simulating and the evaluating.
In response to applicant's argument (see p. 15-16 of remarks) that each independent claim amounts to significantly more that the judicial exception, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that "Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry", "If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility", and "When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In this case the system uses generic and therefore conventional "one or more processors", as well as generic terms without further explanation of anything but a conventional set of steps including "analyzing", "simulating", "substituting", "evaluating" (expressly listed in the types of mental process (evaluation)), and "selecting". None of those steps are provided with non-conventional details as to how those steps are performed. The examiner also notes that a simple declaration of "improving the anomaly detection" is insufficient, as the improvement would have to come from the claim limitations themselves and in this case after each of the analysis, simulation, substitution, evaluation, and selection, the only outcome is a selection of a machine learning model. Once the machine learning model is selected, the computer has not been improved, and neither has any software or anything else. Instead a set of mental processes are performed on a conventional and generic system that results in the selection of a machine learning model.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113