DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Request for Continued Examination filed on 20 March 2026.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 21, 28, and 35 is/are in independent form.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been newly added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely provide for grammatical differences.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 21, 28, and 35, the claim(s) recite(s) in part “generate the continuous function” and “apply a regression to the loaded plurality of discrete data points”.
The aforementioned limitations directed towards “generate the continuous function” and “apply a regression to the loaded plurality of discrete data points” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about a continuous function and, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Specifically, it is noted that generating a continuous function, applying a regression, and performing a mathematical function using the determined continuous function cover performances of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” in claims 21, 28, and 35, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps of “receiving a request,” “loading… a plurality of discrete data points of the time series representing discrete points in time over the time range,” and “returning to the client a result” are considered additional elements. These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. As per the limitations directed to “database” and “processors,” these elements of the claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of searching and retrieving such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “store,” “load,” “receive,” and “generate” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the query result may be generated and output. Therefore, the “store,” “load,” “receive,” and “generate” steps are nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 22, 29, and 36, the claim(s) recite(s) in part “wherein the request indicates a technique for interpreting the data points” and “wherein the continuous function is determined based at least in part on the technique.”
These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the aforementioned steps are nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 23, 24, 30, 31, and 37, the limitations are directed towards further defining the that the technique for interpreting comprises linear or spline interpolation, which is an additional element beyond the above identified judicial exception. This feature is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claims 25, 26, 32, 38, and 39, the claim(s) recite(s) in part “wherein the operation comprises a mathematical function applicable to the continuous function, and wherein the query indicates the mathematical function” and “wherein the mathematical function is a derivative or integral function.”
These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the aforementioned steps are nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 27, 34, and 40, the claim(s) recite(s) in part “wherein the continuous function is determined using a subset of the data points, and wherein the subset is determined using adaptive sampling.”
These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the aforementioned steps are nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant objects to the Office’s rejections. See Amendment, page 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the Double Patenting rejections above.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s asserts the argument that “the present independent claims are directly analogous to Example 39, with the loading feature of the claim corresponding to the collecting feature of the example and the generating and applying features of the claim corresponding to the applying feature of the example. Like Example 39, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations and while some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, which Applicant does not concede, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims” and that “the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind.” See Amendment, pages 8-9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims do recite a mathematical concept. In particular, the limitation reciting “applying a regression … to generate the continuous function” encompasses a mathematical operation for deriving a function from discrete data points.” As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. A regression is a recognized mathematical technique, and generating a continuous function from discrete data points necessarily involves mathematical relationships. The claim need not explicitly recite a specific equation in order to recite a mathematical concept.
Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on Example 39 is misplaced. Example 39 is directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer functionality, namely, the use of a trained neural network to improve the accuracy and efficiency of facial detection. In that example, the mathematical operations are integrated into a practical application that improves a technological process. In contrast, the present claims merely recite receiving data, applying a regression to generate a continuous function, and performing a computing operation using that function. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, database technology, or regression techniques, nor do they recite any particular machine or transformation beyond generic data processing.
Furthermore, the additional elements as previously-mentioned, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering and output, performed using generic computer components. These elements do not integrate the recited mathematical concept into a practical application.
Secondly, Applicant asserts that generating a continuous function representation enables evaluation at any point in time and produces “improved results” relative to discrete time-series data. See Amendment, page 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The asserted improvement pertains to the content or accuracy of the data output (i.e., generating values at points in time not explicitly present in the original dataset), which results from applying a regression to discrete data points. However, such an improvement reflects the mathematical capability of interpolation or extrapolation, rather than an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. It is noted that improvements to the abstract idea itself, such as producing more accurate or refined results from a mathematical model, do not constitute an improvement to technology. The claim broadly recites applying a regression to generate a continuous function and using that function to produce a result. The ability to evaluate intermediate points between discrete data samples is an inherent characteristic of mathematical modeling and does not reflect a technological improvement. Accordingly, the alleged “improved results” do not demonstrate that the claim is directed to a practical application or an improvement in computer functionality, but instead confirm that the claim is directed to the mathematical concept itself.
Thirdly, Applicant asserts that “the request received from the client request has a novel technical feature of including a computing operation that takes a continuous function as input” because “[a]s the discrete data points of the time-series database do not represent a continuous function and do not represent all points in time for a time range, this data must be transformed by the database in order to perform the requested analysis on behalf of the client.” See Amendment, page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously-noted, the “continuous function” generated from discrete time-series data via regression is part of the previously identified mathematical concept, and thus constitutes the judicial exception itself. Merely specifying that a computing operation uses the continuous function as input does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Additionally, the asserted need to “transform: discrete data into a continuous function reflects mathematical manipulation of data, which does not constitute a technological improvement. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to regression techniques. Moreover, Applications asserts that the claimed invention avoids transferring large amounts of data between a client and database is not supported by the claim language. The claim does not recite any specific mechanism for reducing data transfer, such as a particular network protocol, data compression technique, or architectural improvement to database systems. Rather, the claim broadly recites receiving a request, performing processing, and returning a result, which are generic computer functions.
Lastly, Applicant asserts that the feature of the “store,” “load,” “receive” and “generate” steps cannot be ignored merely because the Examiner views them as steps performable by a conventional search engine. See Amendment, page 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has not ignored these recited steps. Rather, these additional elements have been considered and are determined to constitute generic data gathering, mathematical processing, and result reporting. Such activities are well-understood, routine, and conventional when performed by a computer and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to database functionality, data retrieval techniques, nor does it impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea beyond implementing it on generic computer components. Accordingly, even when considered in combination, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the exception.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The claims remain directed to abstract mathematical concepts and the organization and presentation of information, with the additional recited computer functions amounting only to conventional activities. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/