DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 08/10/2026 for Application number 18/456,226. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12, and 14 have been amended and claims 2-5 and 15-16 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1, 6-14, and 17-20 are currently pending.
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 § 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, 6-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
determining a plurality of sequences of events from the event data, each sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events including events that occurred at a respective location within the system and during a respective window of time can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events, (i) determining, for each respective event type in the plurality of event types, a respective count of how many events of the respective event type occurred at the respective location during the respective sequence of events and (ii) forming a respective feature vector that includes the respective count for each event type in the plurality of event types; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
determining, [with the processor], a plurality of positive training samples and a plurality of negative training samples based on the event data, each training sample in the plurality of positive training samples and the plurality of negative training samples including (i) data defining a respective sequence of events from the plurality of sequences of events, the data including the respective feature vector formed from the respective sequence of events and (ii) a classification label indicating whether a particular type of event occurred at the respective location within a first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
[training, with the processor, using the plurality of positive training samples and the plurality of negative training samples, the machine learning model] to predict, given a sequence of events that have occurred at a particular location during a window of time, whether the particular type of event will occur at the particular location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “a processor” and “training, with the processor, using the plurality of positive training samples and the plurality of negative training samples, the machine learning model to predict...”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
The claim further recites: receiving, with a processor, event data from the system, the event data indicating events that occurred in the system and times at which the events occurred, the events indicated in the event data each being one of a plurality of event types. This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity. 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. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a processor and a machine learning model to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation of receiving, with a processor, event data from the system, the event data indicating events that occurred in the system and times at which the events occurred, the events indicated in the event data each being one of a plurality of event types is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: the determining the plurality of sequences of events further comprising:
determining, based on the event data, a plurality of event-location sets, each event-location set including all events in the event data that occurred at a same respective location within the system; and
determining, for each event-location set of the plurality of event-location sets, a respective subset of sequences of events from the plurality of sequences of events, each sequence of events in the respective subset of sequences of events including events that occurred at the same respective location within a different respective window of time, wherein the plurality of sequences of events includes the respective subset of sequences of events for each event-location set of the plurality of event-location sets.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: the determining the respective subset of sequences of events further comprising:
determining, for each sequence of events in the respective subset of sequences of events, the different respective window of time by sliding the window of time by a predetermined time interval.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising:
determining, for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events, a respective classification label indicating whether the particular type of event occurred at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising:
the determining the plurality of positive training samples further comprising, for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events: forming a positive training sample of the plurality of positive training samples from the respective sequence of events and the respective classification label, in response to the respective classification label indicating that the particular type of event occurred at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites the determining the plurality of positive training samples further comprising, for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events:
forming the positive training sample of the plurality of positive training samples from the respective sequence of events and the respective classification label, in response to (i) the respective classification label indicating that the particular type of event at the respective location occurred within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time and (ii) the particular type of event occurred at the respective location after a second threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites the determining the plurality of negative training samples further comprising, for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events:
forming a negative training sample of the plurality of negative training samples from the respective sequence of events and the respective classification label, in response to the respective classification label indicating that the particular type of event did not occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites the determining the plurality of negative training samples further comprising, for each respective sequence of events in the plurality of sequences of events:
forming the negative training sample in response to (i) the respective classification label indicating that the particular type of event did not occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the respective window of time and (ii) the respective window of time not overlapping with a respective window of time of any of the plurality of positive training samples at the respective location.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites validating the machine learning model using an emulator-based approach in which performance is measured based on whether the machine learning model successfully predicts whether the particular type of event occurs within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 14 recites, in part, The limitations of: determining, with the processor, a sequence of events including events that occurred at a respective location within the system and during a window of time preceding a current time can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
determining, for each respective event type in the plurality of event types, a respective count of how many events of the respective event type occurred at the respective location during the sequence of events; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
forming a feature vector that includes the respective count for each event type in the plurality of event types; can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
predicting, with the processor, based on the sequence of events, using a machine learning model, whether a particular type of event will occur at the respective location within a first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind.
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “a processor” and “using a machine learning model to predict...”. Thus, these elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
The claim further recites: receiving, with a processor, event data from the system, the event data indicating events that occurred in the system and times at which the events occurred.
perceptibly outputting, with a user interface, an alert in response to predicting that the particular type of event will occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time.
These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. 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. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a processor and a machine learning model to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations of
receiving, with a processor, event data from the system, the event data indicating events that occurred in the system and times at which the events occurred
perceptibly outputting, with a user interface, an alert in response to predicting that the particular type of event will occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time.
are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising:
determining, using the machine learning model, a probability that the particular type of event will occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time; and
comparing the probability with a predetermined detection threshold.
This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 14, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising:
the perceptibly outputting further comprising: perceptibly outputting the alert in response to the probability exceeding the predetermined detection threshold.
This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein: the determining the sequence of events further comprises
determining, for each respective location of a plurality of different locations within the system, a respective sequence of events including events that occurred at the respective location within the system and during the window of time; and
the predicting further comprises determining, for each respective location of the plurality of different locations within the system, whether the particular type of event will occur at the respective location within the first threshold amount of time subsequent to the window of time. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 14, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: the outputting further comprising:
suppressing the outputting of the alert in response to a prior alert having already been output within a predetermined amount of time with respect to a prior prediction that that particular type of event will occur at the respective location. This limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This limitation is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is also well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-14, and 17-20 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1 and 14 in particular:
determining, for each respective event type in the plurality of event types, a respective count of how many events of the respective event type occurred at the respective location during the sequence of events;
forming a feature vector that includes the respective count for each event type in the plurality of event types;
The closest prior art of record is Paolanti et al. (“Machine Learning approach for Predictive Maintenance in Industry 4.0”) which discloses a method of binary classification for predictive maintenance which aims to find a model that each new example may fail or work normally within the next unit of time, however the reference does not explicitly go into details of determining, for each respective event type in the plurality of event types, a respective count of how many events of the respective event type occurred at the respective location during the sequence of events;
forming a feature vector that includes the respective count for each event type in the plurality of event types;
Pirasteth et al. (“Interactive feature extraction for diagnostic trouble codes in predictive maintenance: A case study from automotive domain”) discloses extracting four types of features from an observation window however as noted by applicant in the remarks filed 08/10/2026, the base count features at the aggregated level do not constitute respective counts for each event type of a plurality of event types.
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Prior art Rejection:
In light of applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn. As noted above, the claims would be allowable if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant appears to assert the claimed invention provides a clear improvement to computer-implemented machine learning for predicting future events in a system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as currently recited are directed towards an improvement in an abstract idea (i.e. improving the prediction of future events in a system) rather than any improvement towards actual training process/operation of a machine learning model or computer/hardware processor functionality. The claims broadly and generically recite the use of a machine learning model as a tool for performing the prediction. Therefore, this amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides a solution to an existing problem in the technical field of training a machine learning model to predict future events in a system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the training of the machine learning model to make a prediction of future events amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The claims fail to recite any details of how the machine learning model itself is trained rather the claims merely recite the idea of a solution or outcome without details of how the solution to the problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they rely upon the allowability of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights