DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed 03/04/2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the Application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits on page 12 of the remarks that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed invention provides an unconventional technical solution for resolving recognized technical problems related to machine learning. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that merely applying the use of machine learning to generate a model and provide a report, as described in the present claims, does not provide any technical improvement but rather emphasizes an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. Regarding applicant arguments regarding the Desjardins decision, as explained in the previous Office Action, the examiner notes that in Ex Parte Desjardins, the courts determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, it was determined that at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), unlike the present claim, were the additional elements only provide a computer generic function of sending/receiving and storing information, do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 11 and 16) are directed, in part, to systems and methods for data processing. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the eligibility analysis, claims 1-10 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 11-15 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture and claims 16-20 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to generating a causal temporal graph for interpreting inferences generated by an inference model, obtaining an analysis report generated by the inference model, the analysis report comprising a time series prediction over a duration of time; the analysis report being one of the inferences generated by the inference model, and the inference model being a machine learning model; obtaining, based on the analysis report, prediction bins, each of the prediction bins indicating a portion of the duration of time; obtaining, using the analysis report and the prediction bins, a set of binned predictions, each binned prediction of the set of binned predictions comprising one or more predictions of the time series prediction; for each binned prediction of the binned predictions, identifying at least one factor that has a causal temporal relationship to the binned prediction using the binned prediction, the analysis report, and a large language model (LLM); generating, using the set of binned predictions and the at least one factor for each of the binned predictions, the causal temporal graph, the causal temporal graph indicating relationships between the factors and the binned predictions of the set of binned predictions; selecting, using at least the causal temporal graph and values for the binned predictions, quantifications of the causal temporal relationship between the factor and the binned prediction to obtain weights for the relationships; and providing, in addition to the analysis report, the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions to a downstream consumer for the downstream consumer to use all of the analysis report, the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions to interpret the time series prediction contained in the analysis report and establish a first level of confidence in the inference model and the inferences generated by the inference model that is higher than a second level of confidence when only the analysis report is provided to the downstream consumer without the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: a non-transitory machine-readable medium, a processor, a large language model, a data processing system, a memory, an inference model. These additional elements in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 5 and related text and [00110-00115] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “In one embodiment, system 500 includes processor 501, memory 503, and devices 505-507 via a bus or an interconnect 510. Processor 501 may represent a single processor or multiple processors with a single processor core or multiple processor cores included therein. Processor 501 may represent one or more general-purpose processors such as a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), or the like. More particularly, processor 501 may be a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, or processor implementing other instruction sets, or processors implementing a combination of instruction sets. Processor 501 may also be one or more special-purpose processors such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a cellular or baseband processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a network processor, a graphics processor, a network processor, a communications processor, a cryptographic processor, a co-processor, an embedded processor, or any other type of logic capable of processing instructions. Processor 501, which may be a low power multi-core processor socket such as an ultra-low voltage processor, may act as a main processing unit and central hub for communication with the various components of the system. Such processor can be implemented as a system on chip (SoC). Processor 501 is configured to execute instructions for performing the operations discussed herein. System 500 may further include a graphics interface that communicates with optional graphics subsystem 504, which may include a display controller, a graphics processor, and/or a display device. Processor 501 may communicate with memory 503, which in one embodiment can be implemented via multiple memory devices to provide for a given amount of system memory. Memory 503 may include one or more volatile storage (or memory) devices such as random access memory (RAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), static RAM (SRAM), or other types of storage devices. Memory 503 may store information including sequences of instructions that are executed by processor 501, or any other device. For example, executable code and/or data of a variety of operating systems, device drivers, firmware (e.g., input output basic system or BIOS), and/or applications can be loaded in memory 503 and executed by processor 501. An operating system can be any kind of operating systems, such as, for example, Windows® operating system from Microsoft®, Mac OS®/iOS® from Apple, Android® from Google®, Linux®, Unix®, or other real-time or embedded operating systems such as VxWorks. System 500 may further include IO devices such as devices (e.g., 505, 506, 507, 508) including network interface device(s) 505, optional input device(s) 506, and other optional IO device(s) 507. Network interface device(s) 505 may include a wireless transceiver and/or a network interface card (NIC). The wireless transceiver may be a WiFi transceiver, an infrared transceiver, a Bluetooth transceiver, a WiMax transceiver, a wireless cellular telephony transceiver, a satellite transceiver (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) transceiver), or other radio frequency (RF) transceivers, or a combination thereof. The NIC may be an Ethernet card. Input device(s) 506 may include a mouse, a touch pad, a touch sensitive screen (which may be integrated with a display device of optional graphics subsystem 504), a pointer device such as a stylus, and/or a keyboard (e.g., physical keyboard or a virtual keyboard displayed as part of a touch sensitive screen). For example, input device(s) 506 may include a touch screen controller coupled to a touch screen. The touch screen and touch screen controller can, for example, detect contact and movement or break thereof using any of a plurality of touch sensitivity technologies, including but not limited to capacitive, resistive, infrared, and surface acoustic wave technologies, as well as other proximity sensor arrays or other elements for determining one or more points of contact with the touch screen. IO devices 507 may include an audio device. An audio device may include a speaker and/or a microphone to facilitate voice-enabled functions, such as voice recognition, voice replication, digital recording, and/or telephony functions. Other IO devices 507 may further include universal serial bus (USB) port(s), parallel port(s), serial port(s), a printer, a network interface, a bus bridge (e.g., a PCI-PCI bridge), sensor(s) (e.g., a motion sensor such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, a magnetometer, a light sensor, compass, a proximity sensor, etc.), or a combination thereof. IO device(s) 507 may further include an imaging processing subsystem (e.g., a camera), which may include an optical sensor, such as a charged coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) optical sensor, utilized to facilitate camera functions, such as recording photographs and video clips. Certain sensors may be coupled to interconnect 510 via a sensor hub (not shown), while other devices such as a keyboard or thermal sensor may be controlled by an embedded controller (not shown), dependent upon the specific configuration or design of system 500. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses generating graphs and interpreting inferences generated by an inference model, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as described in the claims: “…obtaining, using the analysis report and the prediction bins, a set of binned predictions, each binned prediction of the set of binned predictions comprising one or more predictions of the time series prediction; for each binned prediction of the binned predictions, identifying at least one factor that has a causal temporal relationship to the binned prediction using the binned prediction, the analysis report, and a large language model (LLM);generating, using the set of binned predictions and the at least one factor for each of the binned predictions, the causal temporal graph, the causal temporal graph indicating relationships between the factors and the binned predictions of the set of binned predictions; selecting, using at least the causal temporal graph and values for the binned predictions, quantifications of the causal temporal relationship between the factor and the binned prediction to obtain weights for the relationships; and providing, in addition to the analysis report, the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions to a downstream consumer for the downstream consumer to use all of the analysis report, the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions to interpret the time series prediction contained in the analysis report and establish a first level of confidence in the inference model and the inferences generated by the inference model that is higher than a second level of confidence when only the analysis report is provided to the downstream consumer without the relationships and the weights between the factors and the binned predictions.”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights