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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-15), Species A (claim 3), Species B (claim 6), and Species C (claim 13) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 15 are under examination.
Claims 2, 10-12, 16-20 are withdrawn.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/729,267, filed on December 6, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted 03/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully 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, 3-9, 13, 14, 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.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355).
Guidance: Step 1.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed invention (claim 1 being representative) is directed to a system for performing a process and therefore falls within one of the four statutory categories.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. In this case, the following steps encompass an abstract idea for the reasons set forth below:
identify, for a first component of the plurality of components in the composite entity, a first subset of the features that are determined to be associated with the first component based on a variability analysis, wherein the first subset of the features corresponding to the first component is different from a second subset of the features corresponding to a second component in the composite entity;
analyze longitudinal variations of the first subset of the features over the time series, wherein the longitudinal variations comprise alterations of values of the first subset of features;
generate a component-specific temporal progression profile of the first component based on analyzing the longitudinal variations; and
Mental Processes
With regards to identify, this step is recited at a high level of generality (without any technological details directed to how it is performed). In addition, human brains routinely perform identification (based on analysis). As such, this step encompasses a mental process of observing data, analyzing data, and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III.
With regards to analyze and generate, these steps are recited at a high level of generality (without any technological details or rules directed to how they are performed). As such, these steps encompass a mental process of observing data, performing analysis, and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III.
Applicant is reminded that the Office's eligibility guidance does not set limit on the number of calculations that can or cannot be performed mentally. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III. Moreover, it is important to note that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having made that determination, under the 2019 Guidance, the examiner next determines whether there are additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea(s) that integrate them into a practical application. In this case, the additional steps/elements that are not part of the abstract idea are as follows:
receive discrete time series of feature vectors, each feature vector comprising multi- dimensional features measured from the composite entity at a discrete time, the composite entity comprising a plurality of components;
a user interface in communication with computing system, wherein the user interface is configured to display component-specific temporal progression profiles of at least a subset of components in the composite entity.
a computing system comprising memory and one or more processors, the memory storing code instructions, wherein the code instructions, when executed by the one or more processors,
With regards to receive, this step is recited at a high level of generality and results in gathering data for use by the abstract idea. Accordingly, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With regards to display, this this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to outputting or displaying data. Accordingly, this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and is not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With regards to the additional elements directed to processors and components, these are nothing more than generic computer components being used as a tool to perform generic computer functions or the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
In summary, the claimed invention does not provide any objective evidence of an improvement to the technology, nor does the specification explain the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identify technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, even when viewed in combination, these additional steps/elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO].
C. Guidance Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, the non-abstract steps/elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, Fulcher et al. (Feature Engineering for Machine Learning and Data Analytics, 2018, 1st Edition, Chapter 4, pp.87-116) teaches methods for obtaining time series data associated with feature vectors for subsequent processing was routine and conventional in the art [Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3]. Therefore, even upon reconsideration, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements/steps. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II). Thus, the independent claim(s) as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. [Step 2B: NO].
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-9, 13, 14, 15 have also been considered under the two-part analysis but do not include additional steps/elements appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) for the following reasons. Regarding claims 3-9, these claims further limit the specificity of the abstract idea or the nature of the data being used and therefore are not patent eligible for reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 1). In addition, claims 3, 6, 8 further recite applying a model and calculating scores, which amount to a mathematical concept of manipulating information through mathematical correlations or calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section I. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Regarding claim(s) 13, 14, 15, the claims further limit the specificity of what is displayed by the user interface. Accordingly, these steps are not indicative of an integration into a practical application and do not amount to significant more for reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 2 analysis, and Step 2B analysis). Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (and/or natural correlation) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101- Lack of Utility
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
For an invention to be “useful” it must satisfy the utility requirement of section 101. The USPTO’s official interpretation of the utility requirement provides that the utility of an invention has to be (i) specific, (ii) substantial and (iii) credible. See MPEP § 2107 and Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1372, 76 USPQ2d at 1230.
In this case, the claimed invention is directed to a system for analyzing a “composite entity” that is not associated with any real world compound, organism, or structure and results in displaying a generic “component-specific temporal progression profile” that is also not associated with any particular real-world context of use. As such, the claimed invention would require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a "real world" context of use and, therefore, do not define "substantial utilities". The specification generically discloses that a “composite entity, in one example, may include a machine that comprises a plurality of interrelated components such as gears, sensors, actuators, and control units in an industrial maintenance scheme. In other embodiments, the composite entity may correspond to a biological subject, such as the body of an individual with multiple organs and functional units, as described in the rest of the specification.” [0219]. However, such limitations are not being claimed. Therefore, the claimed invention is broader than the disclosure such that it does not require a practical application. For the above reasons, the claimed invention is not supported by a specific and/or substantial utility.
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, since the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific, substantial, and credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. [See MPEP 2106.02].
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 1 are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claim 1 recites the term “composite entity including a plurality of components”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of “composite entity” and “components” such that the artisan would recognize what structural limitations are intended. A review of the specification generally discloses “The composite entity, in one example, may include a machine that comprises a plurality of interrelated components such as gears, sensors, actuators, and control units in an industrial maintenance scheme. In other embodiments, the composite entity may correspond to a biological subject, such as the body of an individual with multiple organs and functional units, as described in the rest of the specification.” [0219]. However, examples are not limiting definitions and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 1 recites “receive discrete time series of feature vectors, each feature vector comprising multi-dimensional features measured from the composite entity.” It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of “multi-dimensional features measured from the composite entity”. A review of the specification generally discloses multi-dimensional features can include values such as DNA methylation.” [0219]. However, examples are not limiting definitions and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. In addition, the above limitation suggests a method step (i.e. measuring features) without positively reciting any such step. Applicant is reminded that limitations directed to the nature of the data per se have no limiting on the method as claimed. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 1 recites “identify…a first subset of...features…determined to be associated with the first component based on a variability analysis.” Such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved and covers all means or methods of performing the claimed function. A review of the specification generically discloses “These models allow for dynamic grouping and ranking of features using variability analysis and unsupervised clustering.” [0028]. However, this is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed (i.e. the claim is not limited to any particular models or computational operations), and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. As a result, it is unclear what computational techniques are included or excluded by the claim language such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to avoid infringement, i.e. in what way are generic features being identified “based on variability analysis”. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 1 recites a “analyze longitudinal variations…”. Such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved and covers all means or methods of performing the claimed function. Computers, for example, can be programmed to analyze data in many ways. However, a review of the specification does not describe, to any appreciable extent, any algorithms, equations, or prose equivalent that correspond to the claimed function. A review of the specification generically discloses various models and calculation steps [Figure 4]. However, this is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. As a result, it is unclear what computational techniques are included or excluded by the claim language such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to avoid infringement. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 1 recites a “generate a component-specific temporal progression profile…”. Firstly, given the indefiniteness of the term “component” as set forth above, it is additionally unclear as to the metes and bounds of “component-specific temporal progression profile” such that the artisan would recognize what limiting effect is intended. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition that would serve to clarify the scope of this term. Secondly, with regards to “generate”, such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved and covers all means or methods of performing the claimed function. Computers, for example, can be programmed to generate data in many ways. However, a review of the specification does not describe, to any appreciable extent, any algorithms, equations, or prose equivalent that correspond to the claimed function. A review of the specification generically discloses various models and calculation steps [Figure 4]. However, this is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. As a result, it is unclear what computational techniques are included or excluded by the claim language such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to avoid infringement. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claims 3, 4, 6 recite “applying a model”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed model such that the artisan would recognize what internal structures are intended, i.e. what is scope of the claimed model and in what way is it being applied. For example, the artisan would recognize that a model generally requires various parameters that must be defined mathematically before the model can be used. However, the instant claims do not define the model in terms of parameters nor do they set forth any steps involved in the method/process of application. As a result, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass to achieve the claimed function. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Cited Prior Art
In view of the indefiniteness and lack of clarity in the instant claims, as set forth in the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above, no meaningful search of the prior art can be made and applied to the claims at this time. However, the following prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Fulcher et al. (Feature Engineering for Machine Learning and Data Analytics, 2018, 1st Edition, Chapter 4, pp.87-116) teaches methods for performing feature-based time series analysis [see, e.g. Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3].
Fishman et al. (J Appl Physiol 113: 297–306, 2012) teaches a method for analyzing temporal patterns of variability of a time series from Poincaré plots which are a popular two-dimensional, time series analysis tool because of its intuitive display of dynamic system behavior.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coope can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights