DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed September 27, 2024. Currently Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 25 are the independent claims.
The instant application is a continuation of Application No. 18204526 now U.S. Patent No. 12131343. Application No. 18204526 is a continuation of Application No. 15642038 now U.S. Patent No. 11704682.
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 on September 27, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3-13, and 15-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12131343 in view of Sainani et al., U.S. Patent No. 10817757.
The table below maps the conflicting claims between the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12131343.
Application No. 18899828
USPN 12131343
1, 5
1
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
13, 17
12
15
15
16
16
18
17
19
18
20
19
21
22
22
21
23
22
25
23
Regarding Claims 1, 12, 13, 24, and 25 Studnitzer et al., U.S. Patent No. 12131343 does not claim the steps directed to receiving, processing and outputting search request/results as claimed in the instant application.
Sainani et al., from the same field of endeavor of pre-processing data for machine learning, discloses a system and method comprising:
Receiving, from a client computer via an electronic communication network, a search request that identifies a request time period window having a start/end time stamp (e.g time ranges, event boundaries, buckets; Figures 4, 6A. 7A; Claim 1; Column 12, Lines 11-24; Column 13, Lines 40-46);
Extract, using a trained machine learning model, features from the request time period window (Figures 6A, 7A; Column 35, Lines 30-50; Column 40, Lines 13-35);
Compare the extracted features from the compressed sequences of time period windows (Column 40, Lines 13-35);
Output search results that include result time period of the compressed sequences that are similar to the time period window (Figures 4, 6A. 7A; Claim 1; Column 30, Lines 36-59); and
Output the compressed sequence of time period windows to a display to enable user input to the search request (Figures 4, 6A. 7A; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method of pre-processing data for machine learning as disclosed by Studnitzer et al. would have benefited from enabling one to perform searches of various time periods/frames of the data in view of the disclosure of Sainani et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 1-25 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 13 and 25, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data processing. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, data processing (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to outputting search results for a requested time period of a data series, wherein data processing is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “arrange”, “generate”, “trained”, “receive”, “extract”, “compare”, and “output” recite functions of the data processing are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The steps arrange the data set into a sequence of time period windows, generate… a data set comprising a series of vectors, train the recurrent neural network, and compare extracted features are also directed to an abstract idea because they are mathematical operations/concepts. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 13, and 25 appears to be to output search results in response to a search request of a set of data.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are additional limitations of generic computer elements: computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's data processing in the general field of data analysis and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited machine learning and recurrent neural network, specifically the steps of training recurrent neural network to identify a structure in a data set and execute a lossy encoded compression and extracting features a requested time period using the trained recurrent neural network, the machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic machine learning and trained recurrent neural network on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the machine learning and trained recurrent neural network functions. The machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic machine learning and trained recurrent neural network to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of arrange the data into a sequence of time period windows, generate a new pre-processed data set comprising a set of vectors, train the recurrent neural network to identify a structure in the data set, extract features from the request time period window, and compare the extracted features all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving a search request is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of output search results is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing or outputting data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the recited machine learning and recurrent neural network machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic machine learning and trained recurrent neural network on a generic computer, also recited at a high level of generality. The machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the machine learning and trained recurrent neural network functions. The machine learning and trained recurrent neural network is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic machine learning and trained recurrent neural network to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The recitation of a machine learning and trained recurrent neural network in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the machine learning and trained recurrent neural network are merely used as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data processing and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 13 and 25.
Claims 2 and 14 further limits the abstract idea by using feature mapping to map the request to a time period and return a ranked list (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 15 further the abstract idea by selecting the adjustable length of the time period (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by selecting the adjustable length of the time period (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by determining a different in the quantity at each timestamp, determining quantiles for changes; and dividing the differences into pre-defined portions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by classifying changes in quantities (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by analyzing quantity changes over multiple windows (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by assigning a category for each time within a time period window (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 21 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the data set to raw market dada and the quantity changes categories to large/small increase/decrease (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 22 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the representing the quantity change categories as multi-dimensional one-hot binary vector encoding (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 11 and 23 further limit the abstract idea by representing the quantity change categories as a 7-dimensional one-hot binary vector (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 12 and 24 further limit the abstract idea by displaying/outputting compressed sequence of time period to a user (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-25, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer system, processor, computer, computer readable medium at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer system, processor, computer, computer readable mediums merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art Sainani et al., U.S. Patent No. 10817757, Bland et al., U.S. Patent No. 9959573, and Satchwell, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030139957 fail to teach or suggest either singularly or in combination a system and method system configured to search, using a recurring neural network, data in a data set comprising a plurality of data records, each data set including data indicative of a time stamp, a level, and a quantity, the data set characterized by a first size, the computer system comprising: a processor; a tangible computer-readable medium containing computer-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: arrange the data set into a sequence of time period windows of a selected adjustable length sufficient to encompass a pattern or structure within the data set; generate a new pre-processed data set comprising a series of vectors encoding each of a plurality of quantity change categories representative of each level and time of the sequence of time period windows, the new pre-processed data set characterized by a second size less than the first size; train the recurrent neural network, based on the new pre-processed data set and a machine learning algorithm to generate a trained recurrent neural network to identify a structure in the data set and execute a lossy encoded compression to compress the sequence of time period windows of the data set to extract features and provide a feature mapping from the sequence of time period windows to a point in a feature space, wherein the lossy encoded compression of the sequence removes noise from the sequence of time period windows while retaining unique features of the feature space as recited in independent Claims 1, 13 and 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Eric Stamber can be reached at (571) 272-6724. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights