DETAILED ACTION
Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
There are two claims numbered 4.
Misnumbered claim 4 (the second claim numbered 4) and 5-18 have been renumbered claims 5-19.
The priority data on the first page of the specification is not reflected in any ADS.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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 1-19 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.
While claim 1 recites the term “steps”, claim 1 only consists of one step. It is unclear as to the content of the other step(s).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “might be dimensionally sequential with ct states of the same compression level within the at least one matrix, but also external to the at least one matrix.” It is unclear as to whether this phrase is optional or required. For the purpose of examination, this phrase is interpreted to be optional.
While claim 3 recites lettered substeps, it is unclear as to why there is a substep numbered 10. It is also unclear as to whether the substeps of claim 3 are in the alternative. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the substeps of claim 10 are recited in the alternative.
The term “approximately aligned” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately aligned” 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.
The term “best usable value” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best usable value” 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claims 1-19 are drawn to processes.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claim 1 recites the mental step of changing key fractal elements as features of at least one ct state within at least one AuT matrix,
Claim 2 recites the mental steps of manipulating the ct state within the AuT matrix.
Claim 3 recites the mental steps of constraining characteristics of the AuT matrix.
Claims 4-5 recite the mental steps of constraining characteristics of the key fractal elements.
Claim 6 recites the mental step of changing molecular structure using manipulations of matrices.
Claim 7 recites the mental steps regarding balancing of ct states.
Claim 8 recites the mental steps regarding reconciling dimensional change.
Claim 9 recites the mental steps regarding scaling values.
Claim 10 recites the mental steps regarding juxtaposition of states.
Claim 11 recites the mental steps of associating magnetism and electricity with compression and decompression.
Claim 12 recites the mental steps of manipulating ct state compression through balancing and unbalancing.
Claim 13 recites the mental steps of maximizing neuron balancing and unbalancing.
Claim 15 recites the mental step of balancing a neuron backbone about at least one AuT fulcrum stabilized by a core of protons.
Claim 16 recites the mental step of balancing a ring of ct4t15 states about at least one AuT fulcrum to collapse a proton into a neuron.
Claim 17 recites the mental step of maximizing energy from waves.
Claim 18 recites the mental step of fractally significant spiraling during polymer cure processes.
Claim 19 recites the mental step of manipulating at multiple compression states.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-19 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment.
As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-19 is/are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed analysis engine requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-19 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #1:
Claim(s) 1-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandelbrot et al. [Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, volume 18, 1985, pages 335-354].
Claim 1 is drawn to a process for dimensional manipulation comprising changing one or more key fractal elements as features of at least one ct state within at least one AuT matrix comprised of a plurality of ct states where ct states are sequentially, fractally compressed information making up dimensional features.
The document of Mandelbrot et al. studies fractals, their transfer matrices, and their eigen-dimensional sequences [title]. Figures 1-3 of Mandelbrot et al. illustrate matrices with cells, wherein the cell are interpreted to be sequentially and fractally compressed information.
Mandelbrot et al. does not teach the terminology recites in the claims.
With regard to claim 2-3 and 19, Figures 1-3 of Mandelbrot et al. illustrates designs of matrices with cells with manipulations of higher and lower cells.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the matrix and fractal study of Mandelbrot et al. to include the terminology recited in the claims because the terminology in the claims are alternatives to the terminology in Mandelbrot et al. with corresponding meanings.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandelbrot et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 19, in further view of Franceschetti et al. [IEEE Transactions of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, volume 40, 2002, pages 1018-1031].
Claim 11 is further limiting wherein manipulation comprises treating magnetism and electricity as features of compression and decompression.
Mandelbrot et al. makes obvious cell, fractals, and matrix manipulation, as discussed above.
Mandelbrot et al. does not teach electricity and magnetism.
The document of Franceschetti et al. studies fractal surfaces and electromagnetism extended boundary conditions [title]. The abstract of Franceschetti et al. teaches associating fractals with electricity and magnetism.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the matrix and fractal study of Mandelbrot et al. by use of the electricity and magnetism of Franceschetti et al. wherein the motivation would have been that the electricity and magnetism give a physical application to compression and decompression [abstract of Franceschetti et al.].
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Claims 4-18 are free of the prior art because the limitation involving complex quantum, fractal, and/or matrix manipulations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Russell Negin, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1083. This Examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 3 pm and variable hours on Fridays.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Larry Riggs, Supervisory Patent Examiner, can be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/RUSSELL S NEGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686 14 March 2026