DETAILED ACTION
This action is made in response to the amendments/remarks filed on January 20, 2026. This action is made final.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 have been amended. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to use historical data to make predictions for future events. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to make event predictions based on historical data, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues previously cited Wegerich fails to teach “updating” the snapshot based on the event data. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wegerich teaches a method/system for empirically diagnosing a condition of a monitored system in which real-time data processing of sensor data is captured and stored as snapshots (e.g., see Abstract, [0038], [0039]). Wegerich goes on to state that failure modes can be predicted based on the snapshots by identifying precursor data to the failure. Wherein, in the event of a failure, preceding data of the failure is collected and stored (i.e. updated) in the database to be used to detect precursors to future failures (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0094-[0096]). Accordingly, Wegerich having taught collecting and storing the new failure mode information in a database for detecting future failure modes, Wegerich teaches the claimed limitation.
As such, for at least the above reasons, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
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 1-15 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 1-7 recite a system of predicting an event, which is within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 8-14 recite a computer readable memory performing instructions for predicting an event, which for the purposes of subject matter eligibility will be interpreted as being statutory, which is within the statutory class of a manufacture. Claim 15 recites a method for predicting an event, which is within the statutory class of a process
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Claims 1-15, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The limitations of:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 (claim 15 being representative)
accessing a snapshot stack associated with event data associated with previous events from one or more of a sensor or transmitter; cloning a portion of the snapshot stack; updating a first snapshot of the cloned portion based on event data associated with new events from the one or more sensor or transmitter to generate a modified portion, wherein the first snapshot is associated with the one or more sensor or transmitter; adding the modified portion to the snapshot stack to generate an updated snapshot stack; and predicting one or more future snapshots based on the updated snapshot stack
as presently drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions). For example, but for the noted computer elements, the claim encompasses a person following rules or instructions to use sensor snapshot data to predict future events in the manner described in the abstract idea. The examiner further notes that “methods of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Pg. 5). If the claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing persona behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The additional elements merely amount to instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (“a network controller”, "a processor”, “a memory”, “a computer readable storage medium”, “a computing device”—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself, this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) indicating mere instructions to apply an abstract idea does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2. Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional generic computing elements (“a network controller”, "a processor”, “a memory”, “a computer readable storage medium”, “a computing device”—see Specification Fig. 10, [0051] describing the various components as general purpose, common, standard, known to one of ordinary skill, and at a high level of generality, and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Therefore, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, translating, and displaying data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
Dependent Claims
The limitations of dependent but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Claims 2 (8) merely recites generating resource or activity related interpretation of the data, claims 3, 7 (9, 14) recite vectorizing the data and/or into a matrix with corresponding time stamps, claim 4 (10) merely recites when the data is updated, and claims 6 merely recites the environment in which the system operates, which covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
Claims 5 (15) further refine the abstract idea described in the independent claim and merely recite using a long short-term neural network. The use of the LSTM neural network provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (“apply it”). See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f); July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, Claim 2, discussion of items (d) and (e) at Pgs. 8-9. The LSTM neural network does not provide “significantly more” to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates also indicates that merely adding the words “apply it” or equivalent use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich et al. (USPPN: 2006/0036403; hereinafter Wegerich) in further view of Parr et al. (USPPN: 2023/0420120; hereinafter Parr).
As to claim 1, Mason teaches An event tracking system (e.g., see Title, Abstract), comprising:
a network controller to receive event data from one or more of a sensor or transmitter (e.g., see [0039])
a processor; and a memory containing a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor (e.g., see Fig. 18), cause the event tracking system to:
access a snapshot stack associated with previous events associated with previous event data from the one or more sensor or transmitter (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0039], [0040], [0045], [0046], [0094] teaching continuous monitoring of various states at a particular moment in time which are saved in a database, wherein the collected data preceding a failure (i.e. previous event data) is accessed. The data being collected as snapshot data received from sensors);
update a first snapshot of the portion based on the event data to generate a modified portion, wherein the first snapshot is associated with the one or more of the sensor or transmitter (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0094], [0096] wherein data representative of the failure (i.e. based on the event data) is collected and stored (i.e., updated) into the monitoring system for identifying future failure modes, wherein the data is retrieved from sensors and can be provided as snapshots);
add the modified portion to the snapshot stack to generate an updated snapshot stack (e.g., see Fig. 11, [0087], [0094], [0096] wherein the data, which can be snapshots, representative of a failure mode is collected and stored (i.e., updated) for identifying future failures); and
predict one or more future snapshots based on the updated snapshot stack (e.g., see [0059]-[0063], [0087], [0096], wherein a likely failure mode is predicted from the analysis of the snapshot data, including the data collected from previous failures (i.e., updated snapshot stack)).
While Wegerich teaches storing the snapshot data, Wegerich fails to teach clone the snapshot stack. However, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring/managing resources, Parr teaches clone a portion of the snapshot stack (e.g., see [0050] teaching several versions of snapshot data). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wegerich in view of Parr with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the modification in order to easily track history changes to data (e.g., see [0050]).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the event tracking system to: generate one or more of resource related information or activity related interpretation based on the updated snapshot stack (e.g., see Title, Abstract, [0016] wherein the system determines failure modes based on the snapshot data).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the event tracking system to: vectorize the event data to generate a vector (e.g., see [0040], [0045] wherein each snapshot represents a vector); identify a time stamp associated with the event data (e.g., see [0039], [0045] wherein each event is associated with real-time values and the sensor data is time stamped); and store the first snapshot to include the vector and the time stamp as part of the modified portion (e.g., see [0045] wherein the vector represents a snapshot at a particular moment in time).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the event tracking system to: update the first snapshot of the portion in response to a change to a state of a physical object associated with the first snapshot (e.g., see [0045], [0046], [0087] wherein each snapshot is a reflection of a “state” of the system, such that any changes can be monitored and updated to the historical snapshot).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich-Parr further teaches wherein the sensor or transmitter is associated with a hospital environment (It is noted that the claim language of “the sensor or transmitter is associated with a hospital environment” is interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive information as they are not functionally required in the claimed system. See MPEP 2111.05. The function described in the claimed system would be performed the same regardless of whether the claimed hospital environment exists. Therefore, Wegerich, having taught sensors for monitoring, it would have been obvious to apply the sensor to any type of environment as a simple substitution. As such, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to substitute the generic environment monitoring of the prior art with a hospital because the results would have been predictable for easily monitoring desired locations). See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143. Furthermore, Parr teaches a hospital environment (e.g., see [0030]).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich further teaches wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the event tracking system to: generate time stamps from time measurements from training event data associated with training events (e.g., see [0095] wherein a time of failure can be predicted); vectorize the training event data into a plurality of vectors (e.g., see [0045]-[0046] wherein the training data is provided as a matrix); store the plurality of vectors in association with timestamps into a matrix (e.g., see [0045]-[0046] wherein the training data is provided as a matrix having associated time stamps); detect patterns between the training events based on the plurality of vectors and the timestamps (e.g., see [0085], [0091] identifying patterns in the data); and predict the one or more future snapshots based on the patterns (e.g., see [0094]-[0096] wherein a failure mode is predicted).
As to claims 8-11 and 12-14, the claims are directed to a computer readable storage medium implemented on the system of claims 1-4 and 5-7 and are similarly rejected.
As to claim 15, the claim is directed to a method implemented on the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegerich and Parr, as applied above, and in further view of Part et al. (USPPN: 2016/0328526; hereinafter Park).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Wegerich teaches predict the one or more future snapshots with a neural network (e.g., see [0007], [0047] wherein the system uses neural networks).
Wegerich fails to explicitly teach a Long Short-Term Memory neural network.
However, in the same field of endeavor of data monitoring and predicting events, Park teaches a Long Short-Term Memory neural network (e.g., see [0051] teaching a long short-term memory neural network to make predictions). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Wegerich-Parr in view of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to substitute the generic neural network of the prior art with a LSTM neural network because the results would have been predictable to reduce the vanishing gradient problem with classic recurrent neural networks). See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); and MPEP 2143.
As to claims 8-14, the claims are directed to a computer readable storage medium implemented on the system of claims 1-7 and are similarly rejected.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 STELLA HIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-5891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9-5PM.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/STELLA HIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681