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 .
Status of the Claims
The claim set received 23 September 2025 has been entered into the application.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 have been amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 3-4 and 6 are previously cancelled.
Claim 1 is objected to.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 are pending.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/0996122 filed 15 June 2020.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “method for testing and fitting dihedral angle parameters of force field”. The claimed step should be amended to recite “method for testing and fitting dihedral angle force field parameters” to address the grammatical correctness.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:” obtaining, results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations”. The claimed step should be amended to recite” obtaining
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:” generate a plurality of conformations of a molecule”. The claimed step should be amended to recite” generating a plurality of conformations of a molecule” to address the grammatical correctness.
Specification
The new matter objection to the specification in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(a)
The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 2 under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025 because the claim was cancelled.
SC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 because in the case that the force field parameters are not satisfactory under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 because ending the process under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 because using under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 because using quantum mechanics method under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 because using the force field method under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 2 under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025 because the claim was cancelled.
The rejection of claims 2, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claim 5 because using the corrected dihedral angle parameters under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claim 5 because using the representative conformations under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claim 7 because “using” the corresponding set of conformations under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claim 7 because performing dihedral angle parameter fitting using the corresponding set of conformations under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The instant rejection is maintained for reason for record in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 and modified in view of the amendments filed 23 September 2025.
The rejection of claims 2 under 35 U.S.C § 101 in the in the Office Action mailed 02 July 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 23 September 2025 because the claim was cancelled.
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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Following the flowchart of the MPEP 2106
Step I- Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are drawn to a method, so a process.
2A Prong I - Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites:
generating a series of representative conformations that represent various angles of flexible dihedral angles in a molecule
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to generate a series of representative conformations that represent various angles of flexible dihedral angles in a molecule and is therefore an abstract idea.
obtaining, results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations
This is step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data (i.e., representative conformations) to obtain results of force field and quantum methods and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing mathematical computations to obtain force and quantum mechanics results, for example, using for force field encompasses Calculus, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra for forces/energy, while Quantum Mechanics (QM) heavily relies on Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Complex Analysis, Functional Analysis, and Probability Theory which reads on abstract ideas/mathematical concepts. The limitation “obtaining” is interpreted as an alternative term for “calculating”. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)(C).
determining, based on results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations, whether force field parameters are satisfactory; in the case that the force field parameters are satisfactory, ending the determining
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations to determine whether force field parameters are satisfactory to end the determining.
generating molecular fragments of the molecule
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to generate molecular fragments and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein each of the molecular fragments contains only one flexible dihedral angle
This step is a mere description of the molecular fragments that will be analyze by the abstract idea/mental process.
performing dihedral angle scan for each of the molecular fragments to obtain a plurality of conformations for each of the molecular fragments
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to perform dihedral scan of the molecular fragments to obtain conformations for the molecular fragments and is therefore an abstract idea.
identifying, based on results of the quantum mechanics and force field methods using the conformations for each of the molecular fragments, molecular fragments whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating results of the quantum mechanics and force field methods using the conformations for each of the molecular fragments to identify molecular fragments whose dihedral angles are not satisfactory and is therefore an abstract idea.
performing dihedral angle parameter fitting using the conformations of the molecular fragments whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory to obtain corrected dihedral angle parameters for flexible dihedral angles corresponding to the molecular fragments whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to obtain corrected dihedral angle parameters for flexible dihedral angles corresponding to the molecular fragments whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory by performing dihedral angle parameter fitting using the conformations from molecular fragments whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory and is therefore an abstract idea.
validating the corrected dihedral angle parameters on the representative conformations of the molecule; in the case that the corrected dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory, ending the validation; performing dihedral angle scans on the whole molecule for the flexible dihedral angles whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory so as to further correct dihedral angle parameters which are not satisfactory
This step can be performed in the human mind observing and evaluating the corrected dihedral angle parameters on the representative conformations to end the validation in case the corrected dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory and is therefore an abstract idea. This step can be further performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating if the corrected dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory and if the corrected dihedral angle parameters not satisfactory to perform dihedral angle scans on the not satisfactory dihedral angle parameters to correct the not satisfactory dihedral angle parameters and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein said results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations that include a first set of energy values corresponding to optimized conformations obtained by using quantum mechanics method to optimize the representative conformations and a second set of energy values corresponding to optimized conformations obtained by using force field method to optimize the representative conformations
This step merely describes the results of the force field and quantum mechanics methods, as including first set of energy values corresponding to optimized conformations obtained by using quantum mechanics method and a second set of energy values corresponding to optimized conformations obtained by using force field method, which are subsequently analyzed by the abstract ideas/mental processes.
wherein said determining, based on results of force field and quantum mechanics methods using the representative conformations, whether force field parameters are satisfactory comprises
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating the representative conformation(s) results of force field and quantum mechanics methods to determine whether force field parameters are satisfactory and is therefore an abstract idea.
obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient and an energy deviation of the first set of energy values and the second set of energy values
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to obtain a Pearson correlation coefficient and an energy deviation and is therefore an abstract idea. As such, obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient and an energy deviation are generically recited and therefore read on abstract ideas. The step encompasses performing Pearson correlation coefficient and energy deviations which encompasses mathematical/statistical computations and is therefore an abstract idea. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) “obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient and energy deviation” of claim 1 is interpreted as performing mathematical calculations.
determining whether the Pearson correlation coefficient is greater than a first threshold and the energy deviation is less than a second threshold; in the case that the Pearson correlation coefficient is greater than the first threshold and the energy deviation is less than the second threshold, force field parameters are satisfactory; otherwise, the force field parameters are not satisfactory
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating the Pearson correlation coefficient and the energy deviation to determine whether the Pearson correlation coefficient is greater than a first threshold and to determine if the energy deviation is less than a second threshold so that the force field parameters can be categorized as are satisfactory or are not satisfactory and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses the using equalities and inequalities for comparing numerical values to determine whether the numerical values are above or below a threshold and there is an abstract idea.
wherein said generating a series of representative conformations that represent various angles of flexible dihedral angles in a molecule comprises generating a plurality of conformations of a molecule, optimizing the plurality of conformations with a universal force field, calculating an angle of each flexible dihedral angle of each conformation of the optimized plurality of conformations, and selecting, according to distribution of the flexible dihedral angles, conformations from the optimized plurality of conformations as representative conformations of the molecule
This step can be performed in the human mind by following instructions to generate a series of molecular conformation by generating molecular conformations, optimizing the molecular conformations, calculating an angle of each flexible dihedral angle, and selecting conformations from the optimized conformations and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses optimizing conformations with a universal force field which encompasses performing mathematical computations such as complex equations (potentials), calculus (derivatives for forces), statistics, and advanced optimization algorithms (like regression, machine learning) to fit mathematical models to experimental data, for example. Thus, these limitations read on abstract ideas. Furthermore, the step of calculating encompasses performing mathematical computations for calculating angles for flexible dihedral angles of the optimized conformations which reads on abstract ideas. Moreover, the step of selecting conformations can be performed in the human mind by observing, comparing and evaluating distribution of flexible angles for selecting conformations from the optimized plurality of conformations that are representative conformations of the molecule and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein the selected conformations cover various areas from -180 degrees to 180 degrees
This step describes the selected conformations as covering various areas from -180 to 180 degrees.
Claims 5, and 7 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claim 1 and are therefore also abstract ideas.
2A Prong II - Consideration of Practical Application
Claim 1 does not recite any additional element which integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Here, in the instant case, claim 1 is drawn to analyzing generated molecular fragment data that represent various flexible dihedral angles and using the results of quantum mechanics and force field methods of the representative conformations to determine whether the force field parameters are satisfactory or are not satisfactory. As such, practicing the claims merely results in determining satisfactory or non-satisfactory force field parameters of representative conformations of dihedral angle(s) of a molecule, identifying and validating corrected dihedral angle parameters of the representative conformations of the molecule, and performing dihedral angle scans on the whole molecule of the flexible dihedral angle(s) whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory so as to further correct dihedral angle parameters that are not satisfactory. Such a result only produces information and does not provide for a practical application in the physical realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv). Therefore, the claims do not utilize the generated representative conformations of flexible dihedral angles, the obtained results, the determined force parameters, the generated molecular fragments, the identified dihedral angle parameters, the validated corrected dihedral angle parameters, and performed dihedral scans, and the abstract ideas to construct a practical application such as treating a subject, transformation of matter, or improving upon an existing technology.
The recited additional element of obtaining data of claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because obtaining data (i.e., results) that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract idea is an extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recited additional element of generating data of claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because generating molecular conformations that are subsequently analyzed by the abstract idea is an extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
2B Analysis - Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea.
The recited additional element of obtaining data of claim 1 does not add more the recited judicial exception into a practical application because obtaining data (i.e., results/quantitative data) that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract ideas is deemed a well-known and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, in an additional embodiment, “obtaining results” reads on data transmission and displaying data.
The recited additional element of generating data of claim 1 does not add more than the recited judicial exception into a practical application because generating molecular conformation that are subsequently analyzed by the abstract ideas is an extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In conclusion and when viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 23 September 2025, have been fully considered but the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant states the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I. The Applicant points to the amended claims for guidance [remarks, page 7-9]. The Applicant states “that at least above processes cannot be performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper because the high volume and complexity of operations involved require use of computer hardware such as a processor. In fact, the complexity of the operations recited in claim 1 are significant even when implemented on a computer. Corresponding to the example in the present application, the Specification explicitly describes "The average CPU time required for each molecular fragment calculation is 0.16 hours, so the total time required for this step is 144*0.16=23 hours" (paragraph [0027]) ... "this embodiment selects the relatively poor two dihedral angles among the six dihedral angles to scan the dihedral angle of the whole molecule. Without considering the coupling, the CPU time required is 2 (the number of dihedral angles) * 24 (the number of conformations required for each dihedral angle scan) * 2 hours = 96 hours, and then the two dihedral angle parameters are fitted" (paragraph [0028]).” [remarks, page 8-9].
In response, as noted in Step 2A Prong I of the 101 analyses, the claims encompass mental processes and mathematical concepts. Here, the claims are drawn to a method of testing and fitting dihedral angles to a force field for performing dihedral angle scans on whole molecules to correct unsatisfactory dihedral angle parameters. Here, a force field is a mathematical concept in molecule dynamics represented by formulas such as bond stretching, torsion/dihedral, and electrostatic interactions, for example. The claims encompass further mathematical concepts such as obtaining a Pearson correlation coefficient. For example, it is known in the art that Pearson correlation coefficient is a mathematical formula. Here, the term “Pearson correlation coefficient” merely replaces the mathematical formula. Additionally, claim 1 was amended to recites calcualting an angle for each flexible dihedral angle for the conformations. With respect to the computational time and using computer, the argument is not persuasive because it is acknowledged that such computations performed mentally, or with paper and pencil, would take considerable time and effort, but that is, of course, the singular purpose of computers and computer networks, to perform large numbers of calculations, via algorithms, rapidly, and without error (assuming no error in user input). Although a general-purpose computer can perform calculations at a rate and accuracy that can far outstrip the mental performance of a skilled artisan, the nature of the activity is essentially the same, and constitutes an abstract idea. See SiRF Tech: "In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations" and Bancorp: "the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. … Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible".
The Applicant states “The USPTO Guidance states that machine learning technologies do not recite a mathematical concept: "A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept." (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Example 39 from the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Jan.7.2019) of "Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection," in its analysis for step 2A prong I, states "The claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships formulas or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims." Although some limitations are based on mathematical concepts, claim 1 also contains inherent logical relationships between data processing steps that do not belong to mathematical concepts. For example, claim 1 actually defines generating molecular fragments of the molecule only in the case that the force field parameters are not satisfactory, and performing dihedral angle scans on the whole molecule for the flexible dihedral angles whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory only in the case that the corrected dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory. Due to the data processing steps, claim 1 can achieve the effect of decreasing computational resource consumption. Therefore, claim 1 does not fall within the mathematical concept grouping. Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1 of the eligibility analysis and the rejection should be withdrawn.” [remarks, page 9].
In response, and with respect to USPTO Example 39, it is noted that even though mathematical formulas were not recited in the claims, the claims were found to not be practically able to perform in the human mind because the complexity is based on applying mathematical transformation functions on an acquired set of facial images. The disclosure of the claim states that “These transformations can include affine transformations, for example, rotating, shifting, or mirroring or filtering transformations, for example, smoothing or contrast reduction.” With respect to claim 1 containing inherent logical relationships between data processing steps that do not belong to mathematical concepts, the argument is not persuasive because the inherent logic encompasses observing and making determinations about whether force fields are satisfactory or not satisfactory and ending the determining, identifying molecular fragments whose dihedral angles parameters are not satisfactory, and validating whether corrected dihedral angles parameters are not satisfactory for performing further dihedral angle scanning. These limitations read on abstract ideas such as observing and comparing parameters and angles to thresholds to make an observation whether or not force field parameters, molecular fragments, and dihedral angles are satisfactory or not satisfactory and making decisions to end processes (i.e., determining and validating) if parameters and angles are satisfactory or are not satisfactory. Regarding decreasing computational resource consumption, this argument is not evaluated under Step 2A Prong I of the 101 analysis, but under Step 2A Prong II. As such, the claims are not patent eligible under step 2A Prong I of the 101 analysis. Furthermore, any additional elements drawn to computer technology, i.e. data structures, that facilitate the recited calculations are not recited in the claims. Moreover, such additional elements may be found to be routine and conventional computer products, regularly implemented by ordinary computers. The implementation of well-known computers for processing efficiency is not sufficient to render an abstract idea as statutory.
The Applicant states “The MPEP emphasizes that a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The present claims are directed to practical applications that resolve technical problems in the field of computer molecular simulation. The USPTO has long acknowledged that techniques that result in a computer system's "faster computational time without sacrificing the quality of the resulting [output]," are technical improvements in the fields of technology (Example 3 in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (Dec.2016)). Claim 1 in USPTO's Example 3 "recite[d] the step of generating a blue noise mask [through] an iterative mathematical operation." (Id., p.8) Although the USPTO found the claim to have recited the abstract idea of mathematical operations, it also advised examiners to look at the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim provides a solution to a technical problem in a field of technology. More specifically, the USPTO explained that "viewing the claim elements as an ordered combination the steps recited in addition to the blue noise mask improve the functioning of the claimed computer itself In particular, [the claim] allows the computer to use less memory than required for prior masks, results in faster computation time without sacrificing the quality of the resulting image as occurred in prior processes. and reflects both an improvement in the functioning of the computer and an improvement in another technology." Similar to Example 3, claim 1 provides an improvement in the field of computer-based molecular mechanics. In particular, claim 1 provides a solution to the technical problem of accurately and efficiently method of testing and fitting dihedral angle parameters of force field, in which, different from the traditional method of directly performing dihedral scanning of the whole molecule, the dihedral scanning of the whole molecule only be applied to the dihedral angles that do not meet the preset standard.” [remarks, page 10]. The Applicant points to USPTO Example 3 claim 1 and the specification [0018] for clarification. The Applicant states “in short, the subject matter recited in claim 1 provides a technical solution in a computer-based field of technology which can use relatively smaller computing resources to obtain relatively more accurate dihedral angle parameters in force field.” Thus, claim 1 provides a technical solution in a computer-based field of technology. [remarks, pages 11].
In response, USPTO Example 3 claim was found eligible because “viewing the claim elements as an ordered combination, the steps recited using a blue noise mask which improved the functioning of the claimed computer itself. In particular, as discussed above, the claimed process with the improved blue noise mask allows the computer to use to less memory than required for prior masks, results in faster computation time without sacrificing the quality of the resulting image as occurred in prior processes, and produces an improved digital image. These are also improvements in the technology of digital image processing.” Whereas, in the instant case, the claims are drawn to processing chemical data strings (i.e., SMILES) to generate molecular conformations and molecular fragments and dihedral parameters for performing dihedral scans for determining whether or not molecular conformations and/or fragments and corrected molecular conformation parameters are satisfactory or are not satisfactory which is data analysis that can be performed by the human mind or math, or with the aid of a generic computer merely for programming efficiency. Next, the claimed method only requires performing dihedral angle scans on the whole molecule for the flexible dihedral angles whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory so as to further correct dihedral angle parameters which are not satisfactory which reads on abstract ideas as noted in the Step 2A Prong I of the above 101 analysis. Therefore, even though the claimed method requires ordered steps for performing dihedral angle scans on the whole molecule for the flexible dihedral angles whose dihedral angle parameters are not satisfactory so as to further correct dihedral angle parameters which are not satisfactory for testing and fitting dihedral angle force field parameters, these steps are insufficient to provide an improvement to technology or other technological fields because the claimed limitations are entirely drawn to data analysis that can be performed by the human mind or math, or with the aid of a generic computer merely for programming efficiency. Additionally, the steps are not applied to any additional elements so as to result in a practical application or an improvement to technology. Novel or improved abstract idea steps alone are not deemed to be an improvement to technology. Furthermore, the specification does not set forth evidence that the claimed process causes a computer to operate differently than it ordinarily would (i.e., using less computational resources). It is noted in the MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Consequently, and when viewed as a whole, the computer is not improved by way to the claimed process. Moreover, the claims are drawn to gathering and analyzing information (i.e., chemical data string: SMILES) using conventional methods (i.e., generating molecular conformations and fragments, performing dihedral scans, performing statistical analysis) and displaying results (i.e., validating corrected dihedral angle parameters for performing subsequent dihedral scans to correct unsatisfactory parameters) which is insufficient to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technological environments. See MPEP 2106.05(II)(iii). With respect to improving the function of computer and improving computer-based molecular mechanics, the MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states “it is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, in the instant case, the entire scope of the claim can be performed abstractly (i.e., performing mental processes using mathematical concepts: calculations and mathematical relationships). For example, calculating an angle of each flexible dihedral angle of each conformation, following instructions to perform dihedral scans to correct dihedral angle parameters, making decisions whether data is greater or less than a threshold, and/or making decision in determining whether molecular conformations and dihedral angle data is satisfactory or not satisfactory. It is also noted the claims do not require using computer limitations. Although one of ordinary skill, in view of the specification, can interpret the claims as invoking computer elements as tool for processing the claimed method the method can entirely be performed in the human by observing whether or not corrected dihedral angle parameters are satisfactory and making a decision as to further perform dihedral angle scans to correct unsatisfactory dihedral angle parameters.
Therefore, the claims are entirely drawn to data analysis that can be performed by the human mind or math, or with the aid of a generic computer merely for programming efficiency. The steps are not applied to any additional elements so as to result in a practical application or an improvement to technology.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C PULLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8696. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635