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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the application filed 12/10/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1, 10-11, 17 and 20 have been received and are acknowledged.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63591540, filed 19 Oct 2025 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) That the instant claimed invention are not directed to mathematical concept. (Applicant’s response, 7-8). (2) That the newly amended claimed invention is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. (Applicant’s response, 8-9) (3) That the newly amended claimed embodiments improve the functioning of the neural networks and improve anomaly detection in various fields. Referencing Desjardins, Applicant asserts that the recited claims improve “…the functioning of neural networks through an improved machine learning technique which reduces system complexity and storage usage for training anomaly detection systems…similar to Desjardins, the present embodiments improve the efficiency of anomaly detection systems by improving computational efficiency and storage impact….” (Applicant’s response, 9-11)(4) Applicant further references Claim 3 of Example 47, to assert the newly amended claim language of the independent claims and newly amended Claim 17 satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 101. (5) Applicant then asserts that Claims 11 and 20 and the respective dependent claims are patent eligible for the reasons argued for exemplary Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection previously and below. As noted in the rejection below, as recited claims recite a mathematical concept and a certain method of organizing human activity. At most, the instant claims recite an improvement to abstract idea. The technology/computing elements are recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea(See MPEP 2106.05 (f) “apply it”). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
EXAMINER NOTE: Examiner notes that the newly amended claim language of the independent claims includes “intended use” language. Applicant may wish to clarify the recitations by affirmatively claiming the limitation. Applicant is welcome to contact Examiner to discuss potentially clarifying claim language prior to submission of a response to this office action if Applicant so wishes.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the parameters of the vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 which depends on Claim 14 which depends on Claim 1 recites a “hardware processor to control a speed of a vehicle response to a detected anomaly based on the parameters of the vehicle.” No relationship between the ‘vehicle’ and “parameters of the vehicle” of Claim 17 and the systems and parameters of Claims 1 and 14 is recited/established in the recited claims. The Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examination was conducted in view of the deficiencies noted above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of event prediction. In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-19 are directed to a system. Claims 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Event prediction for anomaly and risk assessment using a specific known statistical process/technique (i.e. a Hawkes process) is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter groupings of: (Mathematical concepts and methods of organizing human activity) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. A …method for event prediction, comprising:
converting event information into categorical time series data for a plurality of properties;
determining relationships between pairs of properties of the plurality of properties based on a plurality of data types by denoising the categorical time series data;
predicting a likelihood of an event occurring during a future period by summing over a Hawkes process for the pairs of properties, the Hawkes process taking as input the relationships between the pairs of properties;
comparing the likelihood to an anomaly threshold that is based on a range of normal intensity values for transition sets based on the categorical time series data; and
altering parameters of a monitored system to correct anomalous behavior responsive to an autonomous determination that the likelihood exceeds the anomaly threshold.
11. A …for event prediction, comprising:
… and
……….:
convert event information into categorical time series data for a plurality of properties;
determine relationships between pairs of properties of the plurality of properties based on a plurality of data types by denoising the categorical time series data;
predict a likelihood of an event occurring during a future period by summing over a Hawkes process for the pairs of properties, the Hawkes process taking as input the relationships between the pairs of properties;
compare the likelihood to an anomaly threshold that is based on a range of normal intensity values for transition sets based on the categorical time series data; and
altering parameters of a monitored system to correct anomalous behavior responsive to an autonomous determination that the likelihood exceeds the anomaly threshold.
20. A…. for event modeling,
the … to:
convert event information into categorical time series data for a plurality of properties;
determine relationships between pairs of properties of the plurality of properties based on a plurality of data types by denoising the categorical time series data;
predict a likelihood of an event occurring during a future period by summing over a Hawkes process for the pairs of properties, the Hawkes process taking as input the relationships between the pairs of properties;
compare the likelihood to an anomaly threshold that is based on a range of normal intensity values for transition sets based on the categorical time series data; and
alter parameters of a monitored system to correct anomalous behavior responsive to an autonomous determination that the likelihood exceeds the anomaly threshold.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (Mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of converting… , determining… , predicting… , comparing…, altering…. do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements ( stores….) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-10 are directed to a process. Claims 11-19 are directed to a system. Claims 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (hardware processor, memory, computer program ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [104-108] memory devices…[113-114] computer program… [117] processor, memory, software or combinations thereof … hardware processor subsystem …one or more data processing elements… central processing unit, graphics processing unit … )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims (2-10, 12-19) introduce the additional elements of: further defining the claim elements/steps ( including mapping.. Claims 2 and 12; de-noising..Claims 3 and 13; data types Claims, 4-6 and 14-16; determining the correlation …(Claims 7-8 and 18); anomaly rates and action includes adjusting… (Claims 9, 10 and 19). This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [104-108] memory devices…[113-114] computer program… [117] processor, memory, software or combinations thereof … hardware processor subsystem …one or more data processing elements… central processing unit, graphics processing unit … )
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner Note: CLAIM INTERPRETATION: Based on context provided by the Specification (See [009] ) and using broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner is interpreting the recitation of “property”/ “properties” to be personal or real property (i.e. insurable property).
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record discloses/teaches/suggests the following:
The use of the Hawkes processes in an insurance context:
Lesage, Laurent, et al. "Hawkes processes framework with a Gamma density as excitation function: application to natural disasters for insurance." Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability 24.4 (2022): 2509-2537.
Hereinafter referred to as Laurent discloses using a Hawkes process in a time limited insurance process including natural disaster ‘event’ scenarios (See Section 4: Use case).
Anatoliy Swishchuk, Rudi Zagst, Gabriela Zeller, “Hawkes processes in insurance: Risk model, application to empirical data and optimal investment” Insurance: Mathematics and Economics Volume 101, Part A, 2021,Pages 107-124,ISSN 0167-6687, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2020.12.005.
Hereinafter referred to as Swishchuk teaches various Hawkes processes (See Section 2 Background)
Additionally, US 20190155672 A1, Wang et al. hereinafter referred to as Wang suggests a real time anomaly detection and correlation of time-series data includes categorical times series data source ( See at least Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [17-18]) and normalizing the received time series data and noise reduction (See at least Fig. 4[17-18].
Further US 11543808 B2, Song et. al. [17-18] (hereinafter referred to as Song) teaches detecting an anomaly by comparing an anomaly score to a threshold which indicates a dissimilarity to historical time series data. (See at least C4L48-53).
6. Even though the prior art of record discloses the general concepts cited above, the prior art of record fails to teach the application of the Hawkes process to predict events at specific pair of properties and in response to exceeding a threshold, performing an action. The specific claim language that the prior art of record fails to teach is:
predicting a likelihood of an event occurring during a future period by summing over a Hawkes process for the pairs of properties, the Hawkes process taking as input the relationships between the pairs of properties;
…
altering parameters of a monitored system to correct anomalous behavior responsive to an autonomous determination that the likelihood exceeds the anomaly threshold.
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691