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
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are pending of which claims 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 including (Abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Regarding nonstatutory double patenting:
The double patenting rejection has not been overcome and therefore the rejection is sustained.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
Regarding the 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea), remarks made by the applicant.
Examiner specifies that, the newly added amendments do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
With respect to step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite:
Generating features for an ML model,
Forecasting a time interval between data events,
Determining confidence score,
Comparing confidence score,
Generating a work ticket based on the comparison.
In plain language, this is: predicting a value (time interval), evaluating prediction accuracy (confidence score), making a decision/action based on the comparison results.
These steps fall into recognized abstract idea:
Mathematical Concepts: forecasting/predictive modeling; confidence score; comparison of numerical values.
Organizing and Analyzing Information: observe data, predict timing, evaluate reliability, decide mitigating action.
Nothing in the claim requires a new ML, new hardware structure, improved communication technique, or any specific technological improvement.
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims are generic computer components preforming their routine functions. The claims include:
Computing system,
ML model,
Staging area/target database,
Data warehouse environment.
The recited components perform their generic/ordinary, expected functions, which is considered insufficient. These claims are merely functional software components performing generic task (generic computing components; apply ML to predict data transfer timing; uses confidence score to trigger a work ticket). Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no improvements to: database architecture; data storage structure; network efficiency; ML model structure or training technique; processor or hardware operation. The ML model is merely used as a tool to preform prediction, not as a technological improvement itself. The work ticket is an information/result generation step, not a technical control of system operations. Simply applying ML in a data pipeline context does not automatically integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12111848 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) method and system for utilizing time series prediction for processing file management.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a system, comprising: one or more processors, which is directed to one of the four statutory subject matters.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a ne or more non-transitory computer-readable media, which is directed to one of the four statutory subject matters.
All other claims depend on claims 1, 8 and 15. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, Prong One, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite:
Generating features for an ML model,
Forecasting a time interval between data events,
Determining confidence score,
Comparing confidence score,
Generating a work ticket based on the comparison.
In plain language, this is: predicting a value (time interval), evaluating prediction accuracy (confidence score), making a decision/action based on the comparison results.
These steps fall into recognized abstract idea:
Mathematical Concepts: forecasting/predictive modeling; confidence score; comparison of numerical values.
Organizing and Analyzing Information: observe data, predict timing, evaluate reliability, decide mitigating action.
Nothing in the claim requires a new ML, new hardware structure, improved communication technique, or any specific technological improvement.
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims are generic computer components preforming their routine functions. The claims include:
Computing system,
ML model,
Staging area/target database,
Data warehouse environment.
The recited components perform their generic/ordinary, expected functions, which is considered insufficient. These claims are merely functional software components performing generic task (generic computing components; apply ML to predict data transfer timing; uses confidence score to trigger a work ticket). Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no improvements to: database architecture; data storage structure; network efficiency; ML model structure or training technique; processor or hardware operation. The ML model is merely used as a tool to preform prediction, not as a technological improvement itself. The work ticket is an information/result generation step, not a technical control of system operations. Simply applying ML in a data pipeline context does not automatically integrate the exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to a computer readable storage medium, computer, memory, and processor, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. As explained above, almost all the elements in the claims are considered conventional. There are no: unconventional hardware; improved algorithm; technical data structure; unconventional implementation. Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional 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 the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20:
The claims recite:
Associating data with sources/accounts (claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20);
Periodically receiving historical data and periodically training the ML model (claims 3, 10 and 17);
Determining a second confidence score based on a percentile of a first confidence score (claims 5, 12, and 19).
Generating a second forecasted time interval and comparing to an expected interval (claims 6, 13 and 20).
Specifying the data warehouse as an enterprise data warehouse (claims 7 and 14).
Analysis:
The additional claims primarily involve data relationships, statistical evaluation, and routine model training, which constitutes mathematical algorithm/concept and mental process (organizing data by source, calculating percentiles, and comparing forecasted intervals).
Associating data with source/accounts and specifying an enterprise data warehouse merely describes the environment or field of use, and do not improve computer functionality or data-warehouse technology.
Periodic receipt of historical data and periodic model training represent conventional data analysis and ML practices and amount to routine data collection and model maintenance.
Determining confidence score based on percentile and comparing multiple forecasted intervals are mathematical concepts applied to information, without reciting a technological improvement.
The dependent claims do not add any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept beyond generic computing implementation.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20, when considered individually or as an ordered combination with claim 1, do not amount to ignorantly more than the abstract idea identified in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
The additional limitations merely further refines data analysis, statistical evaluation, and model operation using generic computing components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are objected to as being allowable if the 35 USC 101 and the double patenting issues are resolved.
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 MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
2/13/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154