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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 3/5/2026 in which claims 1-20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of training a model to predict token in a sequence of tokens without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that describes the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable media communicatively coupled to the at least one processor the at least one non-transitory computer readable media having stored therein computer-executable instructions, comprising: segmenting one or more heterogeneous time series into tokens of variable lengths based on local minima of the one or more heterogenous time series; generating a universal vocabulary of tokens from the tokens of variable lengths; and training a large language model using the universal vocabulary of tokens . These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) recite an abstract idea of training a model to predict token in a sequence of tokens which may correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements of one processor, one non-transitory computer readable media, computer-executable instructions, and a large language model do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of one processor, one non-transitory computer readable media, computer-executable instructions, and a large language model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements of one processor, one non-transitory computer readable media, computer-executable instructions, and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitation of additional elements does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of one processor, one non-transitory computer readable media, computer-executable instructions, and a large language model are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer element. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Thus, the additional elements do not transform an abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be applied to other independent claims 9 and 17 and hence the claims 9 and 17 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 9 and 17, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimmagadda et al., US Patent Application No. 2025/0278401 in view of Gill et al., US Patent No. 12,086,000 in view of Kalluri, US Patent No. 11,481,554.
Regarding claim 1, Nimmagadda discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor ([0018]); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable media communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one non-transitory computer readable media having stored therein computer-executable instructions, ([0018]) comprising:
segmenting one or more heterogeneous time series into tokens of variable lengths based on local minima of the one or more heterogeneous time series ([0018], [0023] break down serves as segmenting; [0027], syntactic parsing, [0031], [0050]);
generating a universal vocabulary of tokens from the tokens of variable lengths ([0027], [0050]); and
training a large language model using the universal vocabulary of tokens to generate one or more predicted tokens in a sequence of tokens ([0012], [0022], [0027], [0031], [0050]-[0051]).
Nimmagadda does not specifically disclose
local minima and
generating a universal vocabulary of tokens from the tokens of variable lengths.
However, Gill discloses
local minima (col. 4, lines 32-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda to include the above-noted disclosure of Gill. The motivation for combining these references would have been to obtain the discrete-to-language embedding space.
Nimmagadda and Gill do not specifically disclose
generating a universal vocabulary of tokens from the tokens of variable lengths.
However, Kalluri discloses
generating a universal vocabulary of tokens from the tokens of variable lengths (abstract; generalized vocabulary tokens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda and Gill to include the above-noted disclosure of Kalluri. The motivation for combining these references would have been to train and evaluate machine learning (ML) model for document processing computing applications.
Regarding claim 2, Nimmagadda discloses
normalizing the tokens of variable lengths to generate normalized tokens comprising a uniform dimensionally across the one or more heterogeneous time series; and parameterizing the normalized tokens ([0018], [0023] break down serves as segmenting; [0027], syntactic parsing, [0031], [0050]).
However, Gill discloses
normalizing (col. 14, lines 55-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda to include the above-noted disclosure of Gill. The motivation for combining these references would have been to obtain the discrete-to-language embedding space.
Kalluri discloses parameterizing (col. 4, lines 4-11; adjusting one or more parameters associated with a vocabulary, token weights, estimation error…select the model with the lowest estimation error).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda and Gill to include the above-noted disclosure of Kalluri. The motivation for combining these references would have been to train and evaluate machine learning (ML) model for document processing computing applications.
Regarding claim 3, Gill discloses extracting a plurality of vertical scales or a plurality of horizontal scales of the tokens, wherein the tokens comprise a residual width or a residual height (col. 7, lines 27-43; col. 14, lines 55-64, scale).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda to include the above-noted disclosure of Gill. The motivation for combining these references would have been to obtain the discrete-to-language embedding space.
Regarding claim 4, Gill discloses approximating the normalized tokens based on the residual width or the residual height using a continuous basis function (col. 7, lines 27-43; col. 14, lines 55-64, scale).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda to include the above-noted disclosure of Gill. The motivation for combining these references would have been to obtain the discrete-to-language embedding space.
Claims 9-12 and 17-20 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimmagadda et al., US Patent Application No. 2025/0278401 in view of Gill et al., US Patent No. 12,086,000 in view of Kalluri, US Patent No. 11,481,554 in view of Chen et al., US Patent Application No. 2025/0124279.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses generating n-dimensional embeddings of the universal vocabulary of tokens (claim 4, continuous embedding space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda, Gill, and Kalluri to include the above-noted disclosure of Chen. The motivation for combining these references would have been to train and evaluate machine learning (ML) model for document processing computing applications.
Regarding claim 6, Nimmagadda discloses label the tokens with a channel identification token before inputting the tokens into the large language model ([0050]).
Kalluri discloses label the tokens with a channel identification token before inputting the tokens into the large language model (Fig. 6; 606, label, col. 3, lines 40-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda and Gill to include the above-noted disclosure of Kalluri. The motivation for combining these references would have been to train and evaluate machine learning (ML) model for document processing computing applications.
Claims 13-14 are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimmagadda et al., US Patent Application No. 2025/0278401 in view of Gill et al., US Patent No. 12,086,000 in view of Kalluri, US Patent No. 11,481,554 in view of Wang et al., US Patent Application No. 2020/0142930.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses sorting the universal vocabulary of tokens based on a respective timestamp of the universal vocabulary of tokens ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Nimmagadda, Gill, and Kelluri to include the above-noted disclosure of Wang. The motivation for combining these references would have been to train and evaluate machine learning (ML) model for document processing computing applications.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 7 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claims recite a computer-implemented technical pipeline for segmenting heterogeneous time series based on local minima to form variable-length tokens, generating a universal token vocabulary from those tokens, and training a large language model using that universal token vocabulary to predict subsequent tokens in a token sequence. The claims further clarify that the trained large language model performs token-sequence prediction, which constitutes a specific machine-learning computation applies to tokenized time series data rather than merely organizing or labeling information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are initially considered in the absence of additional elements to see if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, the claim clearly recites an abstract idea of training a model to predict token in a sequence of tokens. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea and thus the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are discussed further under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more.
Applicant states that the subject claim as a whole is directed to a specific application in the technical field of computer-implemented machine-learning systems for heterogeneous time series processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amount to simply applying the abstract idea without providing any technical improvements or amounting to add significantly more. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights