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 .
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 without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “performing a change point detection on a time series of data using one or more previously collected time series of data; an identification comprising: identifying one or more non-anomalous blips in the time series of data based on the change point detection; identifying one or more anomalous spikes in the time series of data based on the change point detection; and identifying one or more changes in normal in the time series of data based on the change point detection”, which is essentially comparing a set of data without older sets of data, and identify trends and differences using logical/mathematical algorithms. This can be done by the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims recite generic computer elements including: “a memory” and “at least one processor”. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of “displaying” the results are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)
Similarly, dependent claims recite further details of the abstract idea, such as various parameters of the algorithm, and/or more well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions, such as “displaying” more results from the algorithm.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovell (pub #US 20230077454 A1) in view of Huo (pub #US 20230110377 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lovell discloses a computer-implemented method for processing live streaming data (method of using the system in figure 2), the method comprising: performing a change point detection on a time series of data using one or more previously collected time series of data (using a comparator on data and previous data, paragraph 33); an identification comprising: identifying one or more anomalous spikes in the time series of data based on the change point detection (detecting anomaly using statistical analysis, paragraph 33); and identifying one or more changes in normal in the time series of data based on the change point detection (whether the data is within historical average, range, or maximum/minimums, paragraph 33);
Lovell does not disclose explicitly identifying blips. However, Huo discloses identifying one or more non-anomalous blips in the time series of data based on the change point detection (identifying errors in the data by comparing ECC data). Furthermore, teachings of Lovell and Huo are from the same field of error detection and correction in data transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings of Huo with Lovell by using ECC in the data transmission for the benefit of detecting errors in the data after transmission (paragraph 109).
The above combination discloses display devices in the system (for example, paragraph 61, Lovell), but does not disclose explicitly displaying the specific results of the comparison. However, examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to display the various results, including “displaying the one or more changes in normal from the time series of data based on the identification; and displaying the one or more anomalous spikes from the time series of data based on the identification”, for the benefit of making the results comparison to a human user of the system.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, examiner notes that these claims are substantially similar to claim 1 above. The same grounds of rejection are applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8:30 PM.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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 C SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181