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 .
Claims 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 are pending in this application. Claims 48-54 are newly added. All other claims have been canceled by preliminary amendment.
This application is a National Stage application under 35 USC 371, claiming priority to PCT CN2019/111146, filed Oct 15, 2019, which claims priority to CN 201811197975.2, filed Oct 15, 2019. The certified copy of the priority document has been provided by the IB. No certified translation of the priority document appears to be of record. The effective filing date for the claims therefor is 10/15/2019. The examiner has reviewed all PCT related papers of record.
This application has published as US PG-Pub 2021/0358570 A1.
The substitute specification, filed with the application 4/14/2021, was entered.
The preliminary amendment to the claims, filed with the application 4/14/2021, has been entered.
The petition to revive the application has been approved under separate cover.
The Sequence Listing, and CRF, filed 10/13/2025 have been entered.
The replacement drawing sheets filed 10/13/2025 have been entered and are suitable for examination.
The substitute specification, filed 10/13/2025 has not been entered, as this version does not include all aspects of the substitute specification filed 4/14/2021. Changes to a specification must be made relative to the most recently filed specification. The 10/13/2025 substitute specification does not provide the paragraph numbers (or changes to those numbers as a result of the new amendment) of the specification filed 4/14/2021. As such, the specification remains objected to as not reciting the information related to the Sequence Listing.
Two IDS statements have been entered and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7 and 24 set forth a method, according to claim 1, that is “capable of being applied to a system” and then only recites parts of the contingent system to which the method might be applied. This straddles two statutory categories and satisfies neither. It appears these are intended to represent independent claims to a computer system, for carrying out the method of claim 1, comprising certain elements. The claims should be amended as such. MPEP 608.01 (i-n). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP 2111.04: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
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 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, organizing human activity, or a natural law without significantly more.
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106 and the Federal Register notice (FR89, no 137 (7/17/2024) p 58128-58138) for the most current and complete guidelines in the analysis of patent- eligible subject matter. The current MPEP is the primary source for the USPTO’s patent eligibility guidance.
With respect to step (1): YES, the claims are drawn to statutory categories: Independent claims 1 and 35 are drawn to processes, and independent claim 45 is drawn to a system for carrying out the method of claim 35.
With the exception: Claims 7 and 24 are not drawn to a statutory category, as it is a method that is “capable of being applied to a system” wherein the system is described as a set of functional modules. These claims will be analyzed below for subject matter eligibility in the interest of compact prosecution, but must be corrected.
The identified claims are not clearly directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Claims which include physical but transitory forms of
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal transmission such as radio broadcasts, electrical signals, and light pulses through fiber-optic cable that convey information encoded in manner disclosed and claimed by applicant, are not directed to
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
statutory
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101, since the claimed
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is not a “process,” in that a “process” requires some kind of action, and the claim at issue, does not cover act or series of acts, since the claimed
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is not a “machine,” in that transitory
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
made of electrical or electromagnetic variances, although physical and real, is not made of “parts” or “devices” in any mechanical sense, and thus does not possess concrete structure, since “manufacture,” for purposes of Section 101, is properly defined as tangible article or commodity resulting from manufacture, and transient electrical or electromagnetic transmission does not fit that definition, and since claimed
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is not “composition of matter,” in that
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal comprising fluctuation in electric potential or electromagnetic fields is not “chemical union,” gas, fluid, powder, or solid. In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
With respect to step (2A) (1): YES, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature and/or natural phenomenon. (MPEP 2106.04). The claims explicitly recite elements that, individually and in combination, constitute one or more judicial exceptions (JE).
Mathematic concepts, Mental Processes or Elements in Addition (EIA) in the claim(s) include:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for labeling a protection scope of claims of a gene sequence, wherein the method is applied to a retrieval engine, the method comprising:
(EIA- preamble setting forth a method, an intended application to a “retrieval engine” and the goal of the method.)
recognizing a gene sequence from claims of a current patent application;
(Mental process of data observation and recognition, MPEP 2106.04(a) section III; Specification [0104] identifying text string, [0105] recognizing identifier, [0106] using optical character recognition.)
extracting descriptive texts of the gene sequence from the claims based on a preset keyword, wherein the descriptive texts comprise a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence; and
(Mental process of observing a description of a length identifier, and using a present keyword, extracting the length of some part of the recognized element from the previous step. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III; Specification [0108] natural language processing technique using pre-trained ML and specifically labeled training data).
determining a percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, taking the percentage as similarity information of the gene sequence, and
(Mathematic concept of calculating a percentage value. MPEP 2106.04(a) section 1; Specification [0113] calculating percentage, adding, subtracting, dividing.)
labeling a lower limit value of the protection scope of the claims of the gene sequence according to the similarity information.
(Mental process of data annotation, observing the lowest value, and using that value. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III; Specification [0114].)
2. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein recognizing the gene sequence from the claims of the current patent application comprises one of recognizing a letter sequence consisted of specified letters from the claims of the current patent application, and taking the letter sequence as the gene sequence when a length of the letter sequence reaches a specified length threshold value; and;
recognizing a sequence identifier from the claims of the current patent application, and
reading a gene sequence corresponding to the sequence identifier from a sequence table of the current patent application.
(Mental process and mathematic concepts of data recognition, length value comparisons, matching text strings, recognizing text elements, and “reading” or obtaining corresponding information from another portion of the document.)
3. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein extracting descriptive texts of the gene sequence from the claims based on the preset keyword comprises: recognizing from the claims a position where the gene sequence is located, and looking up a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence from context of the recognized position; and taking the length identifier as the preset keyword, intercepting a sentence containing the length identifier and the gene sequence, and taking the intercepted sentence as the descriptive texts of the gene sequence.
(Mental process of data recognition, and data extraction, obtaining data, selecting a sentence in a document)
4. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, and taking the percentage as the similarity information of the gene sequence comprise one of:
recognizing an effective percentage corresponding to the gene sequence from the descriptive texts, and taking the effective percentage as the similarity information of the gene sequence-and
recognizing regional information for defining a position of a gene subsequence or a core function sequence in the gene sequence from the descriptive texts, and determining a length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence according to the regional information; and calculating a percentage of the length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence in a total length of the gene sequence, and taking the calculated percentage as the similarity information of the gene sequence.
(Mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition and selection, comparing percentage values, recognizing positional information related to some other aspect of the string, measuring a length, calculating a percentage value.)
7. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is capable of being applied to a system for labeling a protection scope of claims of a gene sequence, the system comprising: a gene sequence recognition unit for recognizing the gene sequence from the claims of a current patent application; a descriptive text extraction unit for extracting descriptive texts of the gene sequence from the claims based on a preset keyword, wherein the descriptive texts comprise a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence; and a claim scope determination unit for determining a percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, taking the percentage as similarity information of the gene sequence, and labeling the protection scope of the claims of the gene sequence based on the similarity information.
(For the purpose of this analysis under 35 USC 101, this is construed as a system of software elements, comprising certain “modules” for carrying out the mental processes and mathematic concepts of claim 1. The “system” represents an EIA, and the “units” represent a series of instructions, analyzed the same way as claim 1.)
24. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is capable of being applied to a system for retrieving a gene sequence, the system comprising: a retrieval information acquisition unit for acquiring a gene sequence to be retrieved; a target gene sequence retrieval unit for grabbing a text gene sequence from a patent application of a patent library, and comparing the gene sequence to be retrieved with the grabbed text gene sequence, to determine a target gene sequence similar to the gene sequence to be retrieved; a descriptive text extraction unit for determining patent applications containing the target gene sequence, extracting descriptive texts of the target gene sequence from the claims of the patent applications according to a preset keyword, wherein the descriptive texts comprise a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence a claim scope determination unit for determining a percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, taking the percentage as similarity information of the gene sequence, and labeling a protection scope of the claims of the gene sequence based on the similarity information and a retrieval result displaying unit for displaying a retrieval result of a patent application containing the target gene sequence.
(For the purpose of this analysis under 35 USC 101, this is construed as a system of software elements, comprising certain “modules” for carrying out the mental processes and mathematic concepts of claim 1. The “system” represents an EIA, and the “units” represent a series of instructions, analyzed the same way as claims 1-4.)
35. (Currently Amended) A method for labeling infringement risk information of a gene sequence, wherein the method is applied to a retrieval engine, the method comprising:
(EIA- preamble setting forth a method, an intended application to a “retrieval engine” and the goal of the method.)
acquiring a gene sequence to be retrieved, and
(EIA- data gathering of a gene sequence: a text string; specification [0027, 0162])
querying patent applications containing a target gene sequence similar to the gene sequence to be retrieved;
(Mental process of observation of the gene sequence, and comparison to other gene sequences in a set of targets. Specification [0128, 0161] text comparison/ matching)
extracting descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence from the claims of the patent applications, wherein the descriptive texts comprise a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence;
(Mental process of observing a description of a length identifier, and using a present keyword, extracting the length of some part of the recognized element from the previous step. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III; Specification [0108, 0167] natural language processing technique using pre-trained ML and specifically labeled training data).
determining a percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, and
(Mathematic concept of calculating a percentage value. MPEP 2106.04(a) section 1; Specification [0113] calculating percentage, adding, subtracting, dividing.)
determining a scope of the claims of the target gene sequence based on the percentage;
(Mental process of observation of the percentage and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III; Specification [0027, 0108-0115])
determining a similarity between the gene sequence to be retrieved and the target gene sequence, and
(Mathematic concept of calculating a measure of similarity between two strings of data. MPEP 2106.04(a) section I; specification [0108-0115])
comparing the similarity with the scope of claims of the target gene sequence; and
(Mental process of comparison of data, and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III. Specification [0108-0115])
labeling infringement risk information of the patent applications with respect to the gene sequence to be retrieved based on a comparison result.
(Mental process of data annotation, based on the judgement of the previous step. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III. Specification [0173-0175])
36. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 35, wherein extracting descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence from the claims of the patent applications comprises: determining a sequence identifier of the target gene sequence in the claims from a sequence table of the patent applications, and recognizing from the claims a position where the sequence identifier is located; looking up a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the target gene sequence from the context of the recognized position; and intercepting a sentence containing the length identifier and the sequence identifier, and taking the intercepted sentence as the descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence.
(Mental process and mathematic concepts of data recognition, position value comparisons, length recognition, matching text strings, recognizing text elements, and “reading” or obtaining corresponding information from another portion of the document.)
37. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 35, wherein determining the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence comprises one of: recognizing a percentage of a similarity variable range to which the target gene sequence corresponds from the descriptive texts, and taking the percentage of the similarity variable range as a lower limit value of the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence-and recognizing regional information for defining a position of a gene subsequence or a core function sequence in the gene sequence from the descriptive texts, and determining a length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence according to the regional information; and calculating a percentage of the length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence in a total length of the gene sequence, and taking the calculated percentage as the similarity information of the gene sequence.
(Mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition and selection, comparing percentage values, recognizing positional information related to some other aspect of the string, measuring a length, calculating a percentage value.)
40. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 35, wherein the method further comprises: after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, converting the patent applications obtained by query into a similarity map according to the similarity between the target gene sequence in the patent applications and the gene sequence to be retrieved; wherein in the similarity map, a distance between the patent application and the gene sequence to be retrieved is inversely proportional to the similarity.
(Mathematic concept of data transformation, using a similarity or distance calculation)
41. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 40, wherein the method further comprises one of after converting the patent application obtained by query into the similarity map, receiving a similarity range input by a user and removing a patent application having a similarity outside the similarity range from the similarity map- and recognizin2 regional information for defining a position of a gene subsequence or a core function sequence in the gene sequence from the descriptive texts, and determining a length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence according to the regional information; and calculating a percentage of the length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence in a total length of the gene sequence, and taking the calculated percentage as the similarity information of the gene sequence.
(EIA of receipt of data, and mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition, data annotation, observation of aspects of data, calculating percentage values.)
43. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 35, wherein the method further comprises one of after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, constructing the patent applications obtained by query as a gene sequence development progress map according to information of filing date-and after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, recognizing a core function sequence from the gene sequence to be retrieved, and filtering target patent applications containing the core function sequence from the patent applications obtained by query; and constructing the target patent applications as a core sequence development progress map according to information of filing date.
(Mental process of creating a progress “map” utilizing recognized filing date information, and other recognized aspects of the gene sequence data, and mental processes of removal of data.)
45. (Currently Amended) A system for labeling infringement risk information of a gene sequence, comprising at least one processor andcomputer readable non-transitory medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor, perform the following actions of:
(EIA- routine computer system, comprising routine elements, and instructions, and the intended use of the system.)
acquiring a gene sequence to be retrieved, and
(EIA- data gathering of a text string)
querying patent applications containing a target gene sequence similar to the gene sequence to be retrieved;
(Mental process of matching the text string to a set of target strings to determine “similarity”. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III.)
extracting descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence from the claims of the patent application, wherein the descriptive texts comprise a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence;
(Mental process of observing a description of a length identifier, and using a present keyword, extracting the length of some part of the recognized element from the previous step. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III).
determining a percentage corresponding to the gene sequence according to the length identifier in the extracted descriptive texts, and
(Mathematic concept of calculating a percentage value. MPEP 2106.04(a) section 1)
determining a scope of claims of the target gene sequence based on the percentagdetermining a similarity between the gene sequence to be retrieved and the target gene sequence, and comparing the similarity with the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence; and
(Mental process of observation of the percentage and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III.)
labeling infringement risk information of the patent applications with respect to the gene sequence to be retrieved, based on a comparison result.
(Mental process of data annotation, based on the judgement of the previous step. MPEP 2106.04(a) section III.)
48. (New) The system according to claim 45, wherein extracting descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence from the claims of the patent applications comprises: determining a sequence identifier of the target gene sequence in the claims from a sequence table of the patent applications, and recognizing from the claims a position where the sequence identifier is located; looking up a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the target gene sequence from the context of the recognized position; and intercepting a sentence containing the length identifier and the sequence identifier, and taking the intercepted sentence as the descriptive texts containing the target gene sequence.
(Mental process and mathematic concepts of data recognition, position value comparisons, length recognition, matching text strings, recognizing text elements, and “reading” or obtaining corresponding information from another portion of the document.)
49. (New) The system according to claim 45, wherein determining the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence comprises: recognizing a percentage of a similarity variable range to which the target gene sequence corresponds from the descriptive texts, and taking the percentage of the similarity variable range as a lower limit value of the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence.
(Mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition and selection, comparing percentage values, recognizing positional information related to some other aspect of the string, measuring a length, calculating a percentage value.)
50. (New) The system according to claim 45, wherein determining the scope of the claims of the target gene sequence comprises: recognizing regional information for defining a position of a gene subsequence or a core function sequence in the target gene sequence from the descriptive texts, and determining a length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence according to the regional information; and calculating a percentage of the length of the gene subsequence or the core function sequence in a total length of the gene sequence, and taking the calculated percentage as a lower limit value of the scope of claims of the target gene sequence.
(Mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition and selection, comparing percentage values, recognizing positional information related to some other aspect of the string, measuring a length, calculating a percentage value.)
51. (New) The system according to claim 45, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the processor, further perform the following actions of: when acquiring the gene sequence to be retrieved, receiving a specified similarity range input by a user; correspondingly, a similarity between the target gene sequence contained in the patent applications obtained by query and the gene sequence to be retrieved is within the specified similarity range.
(EIA- data gathering step: receipt of data)
52. (New) The system according to claim 45, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the processor, perform the following actions of: after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, converting the patent applications obtained by query into a similarity map according to the similarity between the target gene sequence in the patent applications and the gene sequence to be retrieved; wherein in the similarity map, a distance between the patent application and the gene sequence to be retrieved is inversely proportional to the similarity.
(Mathematic concept of data transformation, using a similarity or distance calculation)
53. (New) The system according to claim 52, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the processor, perform one of the following actions of after converting the patent application obtained by query into the similarity map, receiving a similarity range input by the user and removing a patent application having a similarity outside the similarity range from the similarity map; and after converting the patent application obtained by query into the similarity map, receiving a similarity range input by a user, determining in the similarity map a first patent application having a similarity within the similarity range, and determining in the similarity map a second patent application having a similarity outside the similarity range; and displaying the first patent application and the second patent application in different colors in the similarity map.
(EIA of receipt of data, and mental processes and mathematic concepts of data recognition, data annotation, observation of aspects of data, calculating percentage values.)
54. (New) The system according to claim 52, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the processor, perform one of the following actions of after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, constructing the patent applications obtained by query as a gene sequence development progress map according to information of filing date; and after querying the patent applications matching the gene sequence to be retrieved, recognizing a core function sequence from the gene sequence to be retrieved, and filtering target patent applications containing the core function sequence from the patent applications obtained by query; and constructing the target patent applications as a core sequence development progress map according to information of filing date.
(Mental process of creating a progress “map” utilizing recognized filing date information, and other recognized aspects of the gene sequence data, and mental processes of removal of data.)
With respect to step 2A (2): NO the claims do not integrate the JE into a practical application. The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone, or in combination to determine if the JE is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(a-c, e, f and h)).
Claim(s) 1, 35, 41, 45, 51 recite the additional non-abstract element(s) of data gathering, or a description of the data gathered.
Data gathering steps are not an abstract idea, they are extra-solution activity, as they collect the data needed to carry out the JE. The data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the JE, or how the JE is performed. The additional limitation (data gathering) must have more than a nominal or insignificant relationship to the identified judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04/.05, citing Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp, McRO, TLI communications, OIP Techs. Inc. v. Amason.com Inc., Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstrom S.A.).
Claim(s) 7, 24, 45 recite the additional non-abstract element (EIA) of a general-purpose computer system or parts thereof.
The EIA do not provide any details of how specific structures of the computer elements are used to implement the JE. The claims require nothing more than a general-purpose computer to perform the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. The computer elements of the claims do not provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself (as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com LP); they do not provide improvements to any other technology or technical field (as in Diamond v. Diehr); nor do they utilize a particular machine (as in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.). Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the JE using a computer, and therefore the claim does not recite integrate that JE into a practical application.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 36-37, 40-41, 43, 48-50, 52-54 recite(s) an abstract limitation to the JE reciting additional mathematic concepts, or mental processes. Additional abstract limitations cannot provide a practical application of the JE as they are a part of that JE.
In combination, the limitations of data gathering, for the purpose of carrying out the JE, using a general-purpose computer merely provide extra-solution activity, and fail to integrate the JE into a practical application.
With respect to step 2B: NO the claims do not recite a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). The additional elements were considered individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to claim(s) 1, 35, 41, 45, 51: The limitation(s) identified above as non-abstract elements (EIA) related to data gathering do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception.
The data obtained is gene sequence information, gene identifier information, length identifier information or percentage information.
Karsch-Mizrachi (2017) The international nucleotide sequence database collaboration. Nucleic Acids Research, vol 46, D48-D51. discloses a plurality of databases comprising gene sequence information, including identifiers, length et al.
Andree (2008) A comparative study of patent sequence databases. World Patent Information, vol 30 p300-308. discloses database sources for patent publications, for gene sequences and gene sequence information. Andee notes that GENESEQ, CAS Registry, PCTGEN, GenBank, EMBLbank, EBI Fasta all contain patent related sequence disclosures including identifiers and related information.
Lee (2007) Patome: a database server for biological sequence annotation and analysis in issued patents and published patent applications. Nucleic Acids Research vol 35, D47-D50. discloses Patome, a database designed for sequence annotation and analysis for sequences in patents and patent applications.
These elements meet the BRI of the identified data gathering limitations. As such, the prior art recognizes that this data gathering element is routine, well understood and conventional in the art (as in Alice Corp., CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Parker v. Flook).
Activities such as data gathering do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field. The limitations do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not effect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide an unconventional step (citing McRO and Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). Data gathering steps constitute a general link to a technological environment. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception are insufficient to provide significantly more (as discussed in Alice Corp.,).
With respect to claim(s) 7, 24, 45: the limitations identified above as non-abstract elements (EIA) related to general-purpose computer systems do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1, and claim 35 are not computer-implemented.
Each of Karsch-Mizrahi, Andee and Lee disclose computer systems or computing elements which meet the BRI of the claimed computer system or computer system elements, comprising input, output/ display, a processor, and memory.
As such, the prior art recognizes that these computing elements are routine, well understood and conventional in the art.
The specification, at [189-192, 203-205] discloses the use of routine general-purpose computers for carrying out the invention, and/or the use of commercially available computer system elements.
These elements do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field (Trading Technologies Int’l v IBG, TLI Communications). They do not require or set forth a particular machine (Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank Int’l), they do not effect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide an unconventional step. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception are insufficient to provide significantly more (as discussed in Alice Corp., CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Parker v. Flook, Versata Development Group v. SAP America).
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 48-50, 52-54 each recite a limitation requiring additional mathematic concepts or mental processes. Additional abstract limitations cannot provide significantly more than the JE as they are a part of that JE (MPEP 2106.05).
In combination, the data gathering steps providing the information required to be acted upon by the JE, performed in a generic computer or generic computing environment fail to rise to the level of significantly more than that JE. The data gathering steps provide the data for the JE, which is carried out by the general-purpose computers. No non-routine step or element has clearly been identified.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and fail to particularly set forth the necessary and sufficient limitations to achieve the desired goals.
Overall, the claims use results-based language which fail to set forth how any given step is to be carried out with any particularity. The claims fail to provide the data required, fail to set forth how any element of “extracting, recognizing, determining, or labeling” is to occur when no actual data or database is provided. The claims do not set forth how any of the steps are to be particularly performed, even if data were to be provided.
Claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the elements required for “labeling a protection scope”. The metes and bounds of the term “protection scope” with respect to claims and gene sequence information is entirely unclear. It is unclear what the protection is intended to encompass, and entirely unclear how it is to be measured. The modification using “scope” fails to clarify this term. With respect to gene sequences, claims in patent applications describe them in a multitude of ways, depending on the relevant aspect. This can include claiming the sequence by common gene name, acronym, GenBank identifier, CAS identifier, by SNV that are present, by SEQ ID NO, by listing text strings, they can claim short identical sequences, primers, probes, sequences with variable positions (SNV), introns, promoters, enhancers, full length sequences, sequences having a certain amount of identity or similarity to the recited sequence, actions performed with the sequence (such as in an assay, or method), aspects of the gene itself such as function or structure and it is entirely unclear how to determine what is “protected” by the claim, or what the “scope” of that protection could possibly be.
In claim 1, no database of gene sequences from any source is provided which could have sequences to be recognized. It is unclear if the “recognition” step recognizes the sequence in relation to a query sequence from a user, or from a database of “current patent applications.” There is no database of “claims of a current patent application” provided. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a current patent application” are intended to encompass- when an application passes to issue, and becomes a patent, is it no longer included; is it intended to cover published and non-published patent applications; or is this a generic database of all published patent applications?
The claim fails to set forth how the “retrieval engine” “recognizes” any particular gene sequence. The “retrieval engine” has no structure or actions. Patent applications can refer to gene sequences in a multiplicity of ways, including by name, by acronym, by GenBank ID, by SEQ ID NO:, or listed as a text string. It is entirely unclear how the method intends to recognize any particular sequence as claimed. The “retrieval engine” is not actually a part of the positive active steps of the method, as the method “is applied to a retrieval engine” in the preamble, but no characteristics of the engine are set forth.
Further in claim 1, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any information is to be “extracted” after the step of “recognition.” The limitation appears to require a keyword, but how any keyword is actually employed in the extraction is not set forth. Use of a keyword implies some sort of matching process between text strings, however the keywords used for “a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence” are not clearly defined, nor does the claim make clear how the identification of a keyword in any given claim (with or without a sequence in it) “extracts” that descriptive text for any further use. This appears to be a step of data recognition, as the “extracted” text is not applied, saved, stored to any particular data record.
The term “a partial subsequence in the gene sequence” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partial subsequence” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is entirely unclear how to determine the length of any “partial subsequence” of any gene sequence based on one length identifier. It is unclear how short or long a sequence must be to qualify as a partial subsequence: is it 2 nucleotides? 20% of the length? It is entirely unclear how to determine whether the length identifier only identifies a partial subsequence of a gene, as opposed to the whole gene sequence in the “extraction” step. The recognition step does not require recognition of partial sequences, or subsequences, or length.
Further in claim 1, it is entirely unclear how the “determining a percentage” is to be carried out, based on the length identifier. It is entirely unclear how to determine any percentage value. It is unclear if this is intended to be a percentage related to the length of the full-length gene sequence, because the next part of the limitation sets forth “taking the percentage as similarity” information. In the analysis of biological sequence information, “similarity” is not limited to length, but is directed to overall similarity between two text strings. The length identifier does not provide similarity information. How any similarity information is to be determined is entirely unclear.
Further in claim 1, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim what is to be labeled. No data record is obtained or generated which may be annotated. This limitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how to determine a “lower limit” of a protection, as the protection is not clearly calculated as a range value which might have a lower limit and an upper limit. The information generated in previous steps is a length identifier, and the indefinite similarity information. The claim fails to set forth how this information is used to identify any range or scope of “protection.”
These issues persist through all of the pending claims.
Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any “recognition” of data is to be carried out with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 fails to remediate any of the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim 2 does not set forth how any string of text is to be “recognized” nor how any “length” or “length threshold” is to be determined. It is unclear if this is a string matching and counting technique or some other process. Claim 2 fails to set forth how any sequence identifiers are to be identified. As set forth above, gene sequence information is not subject to a single type of “identifier” in patent application claims, and the claim fails to set forth how any identification is performed. Strings of amino acid letters can be present in claims, yet they do not represent a gene sequence, which is a string of letters representing nucleotide bases. Claim 1 does not provide any sequence tables, or sequence information of a patent application, nor is it clear what this is intended to encompass. Patent Offices have differing systems for collating and organizing sequence information, and that information is not necessarily tabular, as in US practice which uses a Sequence Listing.
Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any “recognition” of data is to be carried out with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 fails to remediate any of the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim 3 does not set forth how any string of text, or position within a string of text, is to be “recognized” nor how any “length” or “length threshold” is to be recognized or determined. The limitation appears to require a keyword, but how any keyword is actually employed in the extraction is not set forth. Use of a keyword implies some sort of matching process between text strings, however the keywords used for “a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence from context of the recognized position” are not clearly defined, nor does the claim make clear how the identification of a keyword in any given claim (with or without a sequence in it) “intercepts” that descriptive text for any further use. This appears to be a step of data recognition, as the “intercepted” text is not applied, saved, stored to any particular data record. The plain meaning of the word “intercept” is to obstruct or interrupt a process, or to seize or take something from one place to another. It is entirely unclear what process is being blocked or obstructed, to seize, obtain, or take the information.
Claim 4 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the required elements for carrying out the desired actions. It is entirely unclear how claim 4 “recognizes” any information particularly with respect to functions, sequences, regional information, or similarity information. This information is not provided in claim 1, and not necessarily provided in the claims of the patent application. Patent application claims to gene sequence information are not required to identify subsequences, regions or significance, core function sequences, or even length information. It is entirely unclear how any of these elements are recognized based on the data at hand in claim 1.
As set forth in the objections to claim 7 and 24, these claims are indefinite as to the category of invention, the elements of the system, and the elements of the processes encompassed from claims 1 and 2-4. It is entirely unclear how each “unit” acts to achieve the specifically desired results as set forth at length above.
Claim 35 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the elements required for “labeling infringement risk information”. The metes and bounds of the term “infringement risk” with respect to claims and gene sequence information is entirely unclear. It is unclear what the risk is intended to encompass, and entirely unclear how it is to be measured. With respect to gene sequences, claims in patent applications describe them in a multitude of ways, depending on the relevant aspect. This can include claiming the sequence by common gene name, acronym, GenBank identifier, CAS identifier, by SNV that are present, by SEQ ID NO, by listing text strings, they can claim short identical sequences, primers, probes, sequences with variable positions (SNV), introns, promoters, enhancers, full length sequences, sequences having a certain amount of identity or similarity to the recited sequence, actions performed with the sequence (such as in an assay, or method), aspects of the gene itself such as function or structure and it is entirely unclear how to determine what is “infringed” by the claim, or what the “risk of infringement” could possibly be, and how to calculate it.
In claim 35, no database of gene sequences from any source is provided which could have sequences to be recognized. There is no database of “claims of a current patent application” provided. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a current patent application” are intended to encompass- when an application passes to issue, and becomes a patent, is it no longer included; is it intended to cover published and non-published patent applications; or is this a generic database of all published patent applications?
The metes and bounds of “acquiring a gene sequence to be retrieved” in claim 35 is vague and indefinite, as the sequence is either already acquired (as per “acquiring”), or it should be retrieved in a positive active step later in the claim. It appears “to be retrieved” can simply be deleted in most recitations.
The claim fails to set forth how the “retrieval engine” “performs” any particular action. The “retrieval engine” is not actually a part of the positive active steps of the method, as the method “is applied to a retrieval engine” in the preamble, but no characteristics of the engine are set forth.
Further in claim 35, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any information is to be “extracted” after the step of “acquiring.” The limitation appears to require a length identifier, but how any identifier is actually employed in the extraction is not set forth. The “a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the gene sequence” is not clearly defined, nor does the claim make clear how the identification of a keyword in any given claim (with or without a sequence in it) “extracts” that descriptive text for any further use. This appears to be a step of data recognition, as the “extracted” text is not applied, saved, stored to any particular data record.
The term “a partial subsequence in the gene sequence” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partial subsequence” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is entirely unclear how to determine the length of any “partial subsequence” of any gene sequence based on one length identifier. It is unclear how short or long a sequence must be to qualify as a partial subsequence: is it 2 nucleotides? 20% of the length? It is entirely unclear how to determine whether the length identifier only identifies a partial subsequence of a gene, as opposed to the whole gene sequence in the “extraction” step. The acquiring step does not require acquisition of partial sequences, or subsequences, or length.
Further in claim 35, it is entirely unclear how the “determining a percentage” is to be carried out, based on the length identifier. It is entirely unclear how to determine any percentage value. It is unclear if this is intended to be a percentage related to the length of the full-length gene sequence, because the next part of the limitation sets forth “taking the percentage as similarity” information. In the analysis of biological sequence information, “similarity” is not limited to length, but is directed to overall similarity between two text strings. The length identifier does not provide similarity information. How any similarity information is to be determined is entirely unclear.
Claim 35 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the elements required for “determining a scope of the claims of the target gene sequence”. No target sequence is identified by the claim. The metes and bounds of the term “scope of the claims” with respect to claims and gene sequence information is entirely unclear. It is unclear what the protection is intended to encompass, and entirely unclear how it is to be measured. With respect to gene sequences, claims in patent applications describe them in a multitude of ways, depending on the relevant aspect. This can include claiming the sequence by common gene name, acronym, GenBank identifier, CAS identifier, by SNV that are present, by SEQ ID NO, by listing text strings, they can claim short identical sequences, primers, probes, sequences with variable positions (SNV), introns, promoters, enhancers, full length sequences, sequences having a certain amount of identity or similarity to the recited sequence, actions performed with the sequence (such as in an assay, or method), aspects of the gene itself such as function or structure and it is entirely unclear how to determine what the “scope” of that protection could possibly be.
The metes and bounds of “determining a similarity between the gene sequence to be retrieved and the target gene sequence” in claim 35 is entirely unclear. One single gene sequence is acquired in claim 35. No target information is provided. No target is clearly identified or obtained. It is unclear if the acquired sequence is the same as the target sequence. How any similarity is determined based on the information at hand is entirely unclear. No target is retrieved such that any string matching between two text strings could actually be performed.
Further in claim 35, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim what is to be labeled. No data record is obtained which may be annotated. This limitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how to determine “infringement risk information”, as the risk is not clearly calculated nor is it clear what the “risks” are, in this scenario. The information generated in previous steps is a length identifier, and the indefinite similarity information. The claim fails to set forth how this information is used to identify or calculate any range or scope of “infringement risk.”
Claim 36 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any step is to be carried out with respect to claim 35. Claim 36 fails to remediate any of the deficiencies of claim 35. Claim 36 does not set forth how any sequence identifier is to be identified from a table of information. As set forth above, gene sequence information is not subject to a single type of “identifier” in patent application claims, and the claim fails to set forth how any identification is performed. Strings of amino acid letters can be present in claims, yet they do not represent a gene sequence, which is a string of letters representing nucleotide bases. Claim 35 does not provide any sequence tables, or sequence information of a patent application, nor is it clear what this is intended to encompass. Patent Offices have differing systems for collating and organizing sequence information, and that information is not necessarily tabular, as in US practice which uses a Sequence Listing.
Claim 36 fails to set forth how any string of text, or position within a string of text, is to be “recognized”. The limitation appears to require a keyword, but how any keyword is actually employed in the extraction is not set forth. Use of a keyword implies some sort of matching process between text strings, however the keywords used for “a length identifier that defines a length of a partial subsequence in the target gene sequence from the context of the recognized position” are not clearly defined, nor does the claim make clear how the identification of a keyword in any given claim (with or without a sequence in it) “intercepts” that descriptive text for any further use. This appears to be a step of data recognition, as the “intercepted” text is not applied, saved, stored to any particular data record. The plain meaning of the word “intercept” is to obstruct or interrupt a process, or to seize or take something from one place to another. It is entirely unclear what process is being blocked or obstructed, to seize, obtain, or take the information.
Claim 37 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the required elements for carrying out the desired actions. It is entirely unclear how claim 4 “recognizes” any information particularly with respect to “similarity variable range”. This phrase is without definition, and it is entirely unclear how this is determined. Similarity is not generally calculated in a range, in the context of biological sequence comparison. (Example: Gene X is 98% identical to Gene Y) This limitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how to determine a “lower limit” of scope, as the scope is not clearly calculated as a range value which might have a lower limit and an upper limit. The information generated in previous steps is a length identifier, and the indefinite similarity information. The claim fails to set forth how this information is used to identify any range or scope.
Claim 37 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the required elements for recognizing aspects of the gene sequence, with respect to functions, sequences, regional information, or similarity information. This information is not provided in claim 35, and not necessarily provided in the claims of the patent application. Patent application claims to gene sequence information are not required to identify subsequences, regions or significance, core function sequences, or even length information. It is entirely unclear how any of these elements are recognized based on the data at hand in claim 35.
Claim 40 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any conversion of information is to be carried out, and what the converted data is intended to contain, or how it is to be displayed. No particular features relevant to a “map” are set forth. No objects are disposed on a plane such that a distance between two objects has any relevance to the claimed invention. The claim fails to set forth any particular type of data conversion, the data required, the determination of similarity, or the particular distances to be converted or applied to any “map”. A patent application itself is not a map, nor is it clear, in any way, how to convert an entire patent application in to a map, based only on similarity information.
Claim 41 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any further steps are to be applied to the “map” of claim 40, as the data required does not appear to be readily available from any prior claim. Claim 41 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the required elements for recognizing aspects of the gene sequence, with respect to functions, positions, sequences, regional information, or similarity information. This information is not provided in claim 35, and not necessarily provided in the claims of the patent application. Patent application claims to gene sequence information are not required to identify subsequences, positions, regions or significance, core function sequences, or even length information. It is entirely unclear how any of these elements are recognized based on the data at hand in claim 35 or claim 40 from which claim 41 depends.
Claim 43 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how any “gene sequence development map” is to be “constructed” “according to information of filing date” as set forth. No filing date information is obtained or retrieved in any previous claim. It is entirely unclear how to use any filing date information to construct or determine a course of development, as it is entirely unclear WHAT is being developed. The metes and bounds of a “gene sequence development map” are entirely unclear as to what information is required, how it is organized and how it is displayed.
In claim 43 the “after querying the patent application matching the gene sequence to be retrieved” is unclear. A patent application is not a map, and one does not query an application. One queries a database comprising information. It is entirely unclear how the phrase “to be retrieved” is to modify this limitation.
Claim 43 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the required elements for recognizing aspects of the gene sequence, with respect to functions, positions, sequences, regional information, or similarity information. This information is not provided in claim 35, and not necessarily provided in the claims of the patent application. Patent application claims to gene sequence information are not required to identify subsequences, positions, regions or significance, core function sequences, or even length information. It is entirely unclear how any of these elements are recognized based on the data at hand in claim 35 or claim 40 from which claim 41 depends.
System claims 45, 48-54 are indefinite in the same places for the same reasons as in the previously rejected method claims.
MPEP 2173: “It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 7 and 24 are nominally directed to a method that “can be applied to a system” and only recites system elements. This does not further limit claim 1, as no method steps are modified or added. The system has no specific elements, beyond “units” of instructions already carried out by the method. This appears to be an attempt to claim a system for carrying out the method of claim 1, however this attempt is inappropriate in US practice. This represents a contingent limitation therefore any prior art meeting claim 1 necessarily meets claims 7 and 24. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. This is not a rejection, this is an analysis.
The following generic place holder terms have been identified throughout the pending claims:
“retrieval engine”
“gene sequence recognition unit”
“descriptive text extraction unit”
“claim scope determination unit”
“retrieval information acquisition unit”
“target gene sequence retrieval unit”
“retrieval result displaying unit”
“instructions … of”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 112 (second paragraph) as they fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as his invention.
As set forth above, claim limitations identified above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In claims 1-4, 35-37, 40-41, 43 the generic placeholder is “retrieval engine” and the specialized functions are each limitation to be carried out by the retrieval engine.
Claims 1-4, 35-37, 40-41 and 43 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the algorithms, structures, or step-by-step instructions for performing each specialized function. The “retrieval engine” has no particular structure. It is not a specific algorithm, program or system. It has no structural requirements. Each of the listed claims sets forth a variety of specialized functions, each requiring separate algorithms, mathematic processes, or specific structural instructions. The claims fail to set forth any particular structure, algorithm, or step-by-step process to achieve each desired result. One of skill would not be apprised as to what particular functions Applicant applies to achieve the desired result. While the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims.
In claims 7 and 24 the generic placeholders are the identified “units” and the specialized function restates the name of the unit. (For example, a gene sequence recognition unit for recognizing the gene sequence.)
Claims 7 and 24 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the algorithms, structures, or step-by-step instructions for performing that specialized function. Each identified “unit” is completely without structure, algorithm, or step by step process to achieve each desired result. The “unit” is not specifically linked to the disclosure of any specific algorithm, or process of achieving the result in the specification. The units have no structural requirements. Each limitation sets forth a variety of specialized functions, each requiring differing algorithms, mathematic processes or specific structural instructions. One of skill would not be apprised as to what particular functions Applicant applies to achieve the desired result. While the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims.
Claims 45, 48-54 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the algorithms, structures, or step-by-step instructions for performing each specialized function. The “instructions” have no particular structure. They do not set forth a specific algorithm, program or system. The instructions have has no structural requirements. Each of the listed claims sets forth a variety of specialized functions, each requiring separate algorithms, mathematic processes, or specific structural instructions. The claims fail to set forth any particular structure, algorithm, or step-by-step process to achieve each desired result. One of skill would not be apprised as to what particular functions Applicant applies to achieve the desired result. While the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims.
MPEP 2181.II.B: “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” Additionally, “To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.” Finally, “Mere reference to a general-purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239...”
Therefore, claims 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
The function of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession of the specific subject matter later claimed as of the filing date of the application relied on... In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 700-01, 200 USPQ 711, 717 (CCPA 1979), further reiterated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also MPEP §§ 2163 - 2163.04.
For claims reciting functional language, such as “retrieval engine”, “units” or the like, the algorithm or steps or procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed to achieve the desired results. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV. As set forth in MPEP 2161, 2181 and 2185, “the claims must be supported by adequate written description of the step-by-step directions, algorithms, or structures to carry out the claimed steps.”
Whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that ‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. The court in Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953[, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123] (Fed. Cir. 2007), put the point this way: "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure." Additionally, "[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general-purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))
"Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function." Additionally, "[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp..” An invention described solely in terms of a method of its desired function lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "varies with the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d at 1357, 76 USPQ2d at 1084. For inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predictable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession.
Considering claims 1-4, 7, 24, 35-37, 40-41, 43, 45, 48-54, the claimed technology of determining a scope of protection of a gene sequence, or determining a risk of infringement of a gene sequence is considered in the art to be unpredictable.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function... See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This includes the particular disclosure of the algorithms, structures, or step-by step processes specifically linked to particular specialized functions in the claims. MPEP 2181: “The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general-purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general-purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. Additionally, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome).
In order to practice the claimed invention one of skill in the art must carry out a variety of retrieval, recognition, determination and labeling steps to determine a scope of protection or infringement risk. The actual calculations, algorithms, or steps for specifically performing the steps and specialized functions of the claims are not clearly provided by the disclosure, nor are they present in the claims. While the specification provides some algorithms or flowcharts related to one or more processes or calculations, there is not a clear basis linking specific algorithmic processes to specific steps within the entire scope of the claim, and an issue exists as to whether the disclosure is adequate to perform the entire claimed function(s).
The skilled practitioner would first turn to the instant specification to identify the specific algorithms or steps required by the specialized functions recited by the claims. However, the instant disclosure does not provide a written description of those specialized functions, and fails to link the particular algorithms or processes disclosed by the specification to specific functional limitations of the claims. As such, the skilled practitioner would turn to the prior art for guidance as to any known correlations between the disclosed structures or algorithms, and the specialized functions of the claims, however, there are no such clear correlations. As such, the claims lack adequate written description.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
In view of the indefiniteness of the claims, the examiner applies the following prior art to the BRI of the rejected claims in as far as the BRI could be determined.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 24, 35, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (2018), Rosenfeld (2013) and Wittfoth (2019).
Luo, L. et al. (2018) A neural network approach to chemical and gene/protein entity recognition in patents. Journal of Cheminformatics, vol 10:65, 10 pages.
Rosenfeld et al. (2013) Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome. Genome Medicine, Vol 5:27, 8 pages.
Wittfoth, S. (2019) Measuring technological patent scope by semantic analysis of patent claims- an indicator for valuating patents. World Patent Information, vol 58:101906. 17 pages.
Wittfoth is directed to the analysis of patent document claims, to determine the scope or infringement risk of a technology, and patent valuation. Wittfoth discloses computer-implemented methods, systems and programs.
“Overcoming deficits caused by an insufficient use of bibliometric indicators, this paper provides a normalized technological patent scope indicator through a semantic patent analysis of patent claims. By providing regressions between the patent scope and several indicators, this paper shows that the patent scope in the case of the three technologies DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray disc, follows several theories of prior work. This work tackles theoretical implications, as it manages to operationalize Knight's theory (hash mark analogy of broad and narrow patent claims) by a data driven approach and enhances recent work by means of a normalized semantic patent scope, based on patent claims instead of bibliometric data. Finally, managers may profit from a higher resolution regarding decision making for competitor analysis and M&A-questions, as this new indicator describes how broadly assignees define their technologies semantically, thereby offering a source for a patent's value.” (abstract)
The framework of Wittfoth utilizes semantic dependency analysis to define a patent scope indicator. “The method comprises eight steps, in which it uses the selected patents' claim sections as input, and develops an indicator of each patent's scope as output.” (p2).
Wittfoth notes: “Gaining patent scope is rather complex and difficult to operationalize and to measure [25]. In order to overcome this difficulty, many researchers have made efforts to develop measures of patent scope by using different indicators.”
Figure 2 illustrates the concepts of the scope of protection for a specific topic. Table 1 surveys the prior art in how indicators of patent scope have been approached, including the use of keywords, tree visualization, structure of patent claims, logical rule creation, sentence structure, natural language processing, conceptual graphs, parts-of-speech tagging, domain ontologies, dependency trees, keyword vectors, et al. One type of identifier disclosed by Wittfoth includes a length identifier: the length of the claim itself. P4.
Wittfoth discloses the overall method beginning in section 3, discussing the analysis of all the claims, including dependent claims. Certain assumptions are set forth in col 2, p 5. See also Fig 3. Wittfoth defines the source of information as a patent database containing all bibliographic and full-text information for each patent. The data is pre-processed to extract claim information. The claims are parsed and dependency information is gathered. Dependency lists are generated, counts of claims are determined, and a calculation of “dependency depth” is performed according to Eq 1-4, p 6. The values are normalized, using EQ 5-7. The concept of the calculated arcs is disclosed in Eq 8-10. The final calculation of the scope of the claim of the patent for the invention is set forth in section 3.1.8, and EQ 11-14.
Wittfoth selects a technology, and obtains keywords related to the topic in section 3.2, as well as earliest priority year information. Section 4 sets forth how Wittfoth’s method was applied to the technology of interest: DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Wittfoth describes in detail how each metric is derived, how it is analyzed over time, and how each metric attempts to answer the concept of “scope of protection”. See Table 11 and Fig 7. Wittfoth extends their analysis to include other metrics, such as length of claim, word count, inventor counts, and counts of cited references.
“In terms of managerial implications, this approach expands the big picture for competitor analysis and decision making based on patent analysis. Adding the provided patent scope indicator to existing ones might be useful for profiling companies along with their average patent scope for different parts of technologies. This step will thus enhance the resolution of competitor analysis. There is a competitive advantage arising from the protection of a main technology core by means of a broad patent. This indicator also enables managers to scout for upcoming topics by decrypting anomalies in regard to an outstanding patent scope at an early stage and find relevant companies for M&A activities. The shown patent scope outlines how broadly or narrowly companies claim parts of a technology by means of a single patent or even by an entire patent portfolio on average. Consequently, this measure is able to provide insights into whether individual patents or the portfolio of a possible M&A candidate focus on rather general or specific parts of a technology. This information is useful in the context of M&A activities, as candidates may be classified according to their focus and internal competencies (general vs. specific), which reduces the number of patent claims that have to be read manually, and thus supports identifying M&A candidates more efficiently.”
While Wittfoth chose to exemplify DVD related technology, Wittfoth specifically notes this can be applied to any technology. Wittfoth specifically suggests that combination of his approach with analysis of products will obtain next level insights.
In the field of patent document analysis, particularly for biological sequence products, Luo provides computer-implemented methods, systems and computer-program products comprising instructions for carrying out the identification and analysis of gene sequence information in patents or patent applications.
“To accelerate the development of biomedical text mining for patents, the BioCreative V.5 challenge organized three tracks, i.e., chemical entity mention recognition (CEMP), gene and protein related object recognition (GPRO) and technical interoperability and performance of annotation servers, to focus on biomedical entity recognition in patents. This paper describes our neural network approach for the CEMP and GPRO tracks. In the approach, a bidirectional long short-term memory with a conditional random field layer is employed to recognize biomedical entities from patents.” (Abstract)
Luo provides “retrieval engines” for retrieving, obtaining, selecting or gathering gene sequence information. (page 2, Methods, BiLSTM-CRF).
Luo provides trained ML, which use natural language processing techniques. The training consisted of labeled examples of gene sequence information including keywords related to gene name, sequence identifier, length, function, et al. (Fig 1, p2-3 Text pre-processing, Feature processing, word embedding, character features, and additional features.) These elements “extract” descriptive text from the patent document. One length identifier is discussed at p3, “character feature”.
Luo utilizes the length identifier as set forth on page 4, BiLSTM-CRF model, in a recurrent neural network, modified with a long short-term memory element, in a bidirectional matter. This model is applied to label aspects of gene sequence information present in patent documents.
Luo does not use their model to determine a protection scope, or infringement risk.
In the same field of biosequence patent document analysis, Rosenfeld obtains gene sequence information, compares the Query sequence to the target database of sequences, to determine whether patent protection exists for a Query sequence. Rosenfeld points out that the sequence structure of a gene sequence is strongly related to its chemical structure, but chemical structure representations of genes “rarely appear in gene patents…” (Fig 2). Rosenfeld also notes that “some gene patents for genetic sequences do not contain the DNA fragments in the actual claims.” P2. Rosenfeld specifically uses length identifiers (15-mers) in the analysis. “Thus, we sought to examine the current landscape of
gene patents using empirical, exact matches to known genes that were confirmed to be present in patent claims, ranging from sequences of 15 nucleotides (15mers) to the full lengths of all patented DNA fragments.” P2, last paragraph.
Rosenfeld divided all gene into k-mers of varying length, and compared the query sequence to the sequence database using the Bowtie alignment program. Various percentages are calculated by Rosenfeld (percentage of length, percentage of representation). Rosenfeld concludes that the scope of protection for any given sequence depends on the text string itself, the length of any subsequence, and the specificity of the claim.
“Our data show that currently claimed nucleotide sequences in US patents cover at least 41% of existing genes, as identified by BLAST alignment matches, and as many as 100% when allowing for 15mers. We also observed a large number of cross-kingdom exact matches of 15mers, indicating that not only human genetic sequences are in play: entire patent families from plant genomics can similarly claim the majority of the human genome. As both plant and animal patents claim short
sequences, as well as those with low homology (45 to 55%), any claimed sequence will inevitably match many others. Yet, importantly, we observe that there is no ideal k-mer size that will preclude matches with another gene in the genome. Thus, the non-specificity needed for diagnostic patents to find any mutated sequence of one gene expands their property rights to hundreds or thousands of other genes.” P4-5.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to Wittfoth, Luo and Rosenfeld, the Examiner concluded that the analysis of patent claim text to determine a scope of protection, or a risk of infringement related to gene sequence data including metrics related to gene sequence length, aspects of the sequence itself, keywords related to gene function, and sequence similarity represented the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to consider Luo and Rosenfeld when attempting to determine a scope of protection for gene sequence information as both assess technical aspects of recognition of gene sequence information, analysis and similarity determinations, as well as percentage information. Further, the addition of these metrics to the overall framework provided by Wittfoth would have been considered a basic step of the scientific and legal analysis process, to determine whether a given invention should be pursued. The addition of the gene sequence specific metrics would have allowed one of ordinary skill to determine a scope of protection for that sequence, or the inverse: a risk of infringement. One of skill would have been motivated to add the types of data provided by Luo and Rosenfeld, because difficulty in analysis of gene sequence patent claims was known to be difficult, and to depend on a variety of factors. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success at adding the types of data, as Wittfoth provides the mathematical processes or algorithms required. Such a combination is merely a "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int’l 7, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suominen et al. (2017) Firms’ knowledge profiles: mapping patent data with unsupervised learning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol 115, p131-142.
Cimino, A. (2017) Information extraction systems for patent analysis. Thesis, Universita di Pisa. 105 pages.
Jefferson et al. (2015) Public disclosure of biological sequences in global patent practice. World Patent Information, vol 43, p12-24.
Kuhn et al. (2019) How to measure and draw causal inferences with patent scope. Int J of the Econ of Busin. Vol 26, no 1, p5-38.
Freilich, J. (2015). The uninformed topograhy of patent scope. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19(1), 150-195.
Kim et al. (2016) Generating patent development maps for technology monitoring using semantic patent-topic analysis. Computer & Industrial engineering. Vol 98, p289-299.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY K ZEMAN whose telephone number is 5712720723. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-2pm M-F. Email may be sent to mary.zeman@uspto.gov if the appropriate permissions have been filed.
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, Larry Riggs can be reached on 571 270-3062. 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.
/MARY K ZEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686