DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 1/27/26 the following is a final office action. Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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, 6-10, 13-14, 17-18 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.
With regard to the present claims 1-2, 6-10, 13-14, 17-18, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite "Mathematical Concepts".
The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of
electronic time series records, which are mathematical relationships. The mere nominal recitation of a
generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the "Mathematical Concepts"
grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely
describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating
time series information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a
high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing time series records
update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely
describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating
information related to time series records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a
whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The
claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant traverses Examiner’s rejection in view of the claimed amendments. Applicant submits that regardless of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are patent eligible because they at least recite a practical application, and refers to EX Parte Desjardins, a memo by Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim issued in response to an earlier memorandum issued by USPTO Director John A. Squires, and argues that the independent claims in tis application are similarly directed to improvements to the functions of a machine learning model. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Ex parte Desjardins confirms that claims directed to a judicial exception may be patent eligible if they integrate the exception into a practical application, the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In Desjardins, the Board found eligibility because the claims recited specific technical features that improved the operation of a computer system, including concrete data structures and particular processing techniques that addressed a technological problem in computer operation. The present claims describing using irregular time intervals as-is and not fitting the data to a predefined interval structure merely show the desired outcome of the data processing rather than a specific manner of achieving the outcome. The claims do not describe how the irregular time intervals are actually processed by the convolutional neural network or any architectural or operational changes to the neural network itself. With regard to providing the prediction to a downstream consumer for use in providing computer-implemented services is insignificant extra-solution activity since this prediction merely outputs the result of the abstract idea without improving any technological process. Also, in comparison to Desjardins, the present claims are result-oriented and functional in nature and do not recite a specific technical solution to a technological problem.
Applicant further argues that as a result, "embodiments disclosed herein may provide an improved method for forecasting changes in quantities over time by using a fuzzy kernel that enables a convolutional neural network to generate predictions based on time series data of samples of the quantities that may have irregular time intervals," which directly improves the functionality of the
convolutional neural network from initially being unable to process data having such irregular time
intervals to being able to process and even generate accurate inferences even when such data
having such irregular time intervals is provided as the input data for generating the inferences (i.e.,
predictions). First, Examiner notes that the limitation relating to a fuzzy kernel is recited only in dependent claims and is not present in the independent claims. Eligibility under 35 USC 101 must be determined based on the limitations actually recited in each claim. The independent claim does not recite a fuzzy kernel or any other specific technical mechanism for enabling a convolutional neural network to process irregularly spaced time-series data. Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the independent claim. With respect to the dependent claims that recite a fuzzy kernel, the Examiner acknowledges that these claims recite additional technical limitations directed to enabling convolution over irregular time intervals. To the extent these limitations specify a particular technical mechanism that improves the functionality of the convolutional neural network, the Examiner considers these dependent claims to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and withdraws the 35 USC 101 rejection with respect to these particular dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art having benefit of Applicant's specification would recognize that the independent claims, like the claims that were found patentable in Desjardins, are also directed to an improvement to the functions of a machine learning model. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Patent eligibility under 35 USC 101 is determined based on the limitations recited in the claims, not on unclaimed features described in the specification or inferred by a skilled artisan. The independent claim does not recite the fuzzy kernel or any other specific technical mechanism alleged to improve the functionality of the convolutional neural network. In Ex parte Desjardins, the claims themselves recited concrete technical features that improved computer opt=ration. Since the alleged improvement is not commensurate in scope with the independent claim, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed1/27/26, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 10, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628