Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving multivariate time series sample data; using a shapelet concept bottleneck model (SCBM) to determine a likelihood that a shapelet occurs by calculating an mth dimension of a time series data point of the multivariate time series sample data and an mth dimension of univariate shapelet, where the shapelet concept bottleneck model is a linear layer over the likelihood of the shapelet occurring; training the shapelet concept bottleneck model with an additional classification loss with shapelet concept bottleneck model regularizations; and generating the explainable time series classifications based on the trained shapelet concept bottleneck model.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done using mathematical concepts under mathematical calculations. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed using mathematical concepts. For example, “receiving”, “using”, “training”, and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to calculate dimensions of time series data using mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “a memory device” and a “tangible computer readable storage medium” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 16 and 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-15 and 18-20 define how the models are trained which further describes the abstract idea. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights