DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged. In this instant application, claims 11 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The Applicant elected Group I which is actually drawn to claims 1-10,12-14 and 16 and does not include claim 17 because claim 17 depends on claim 11 which is part of Group II along with the parent claim 30. Claims 1-2, 4-10,12-14 and 16 are being examined on the merits.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to the Restriction Requirement
The Remarks of 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts that there is not enough evidence to show why each of the groups lacks unity relative to each other group directing the argument to each qubit taught by Mershin being an α/β-heterodimer that does not assume a secondary-structure (pgs. 7-8). The Examiner disagrees and notes that the Restriction Requirement filed was complete and correctly applied. The claims as amended share the new technical feature, which is still not novel in view of the art.
Mershin ("Quantum brain?" arXiv preprint quant-ph/0007088 (2000)) teaches a model of memory and brain function focusing on the sub-molecular (electron), molecular (tubulin) and macromolecular (microtubule) components of the neural cytoskeleton (i.e. brain components) (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the tubulin protein molecule is treated as a quantum unit (qubit) in a quantum-computational network of microtubules (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein each tubulin subunit is a polar dimer of length of about 8nm and it consists of two slightly different classes of a 4nm, 55kD (kilo-Dalton) monomer known as α and β-tubulin (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 11 para. 3); wherein the tubulin dimer subunits within microtubules are arranged in a hexagonal twisted lattice, and helical pathways that repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (i.e. each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure) (pg. 11 para. 3). The argument that tubulin is not a polypeptide is not persuasive because it simply goes against scientific knowledge. Tubulin is a protein composed of multiple two distinct polypeptide chains named α and β-tubulin (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 13 Fig. 4). By definition, a protein is a polypeptide composed by multiple peptide connected by peptide bonds and inherently, any protein assumes a secondary structure, which is further confirmed by Mershin in "the tubulin dimer subunits within microtubules are arranged in a hexagonal twisted lattice, and helical pathways that repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows" (i.e. each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure) (pg. 11 para. 3).
The claims as amended share a technical feature and do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as explained in detail in the Restriction Requirement filed 10/20/2025.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
I. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16, drawn to a quantum memory, a polypeptide and apparatus comprising quantum memory.
II. Claims 11 and 17 drawn to method of storing data in quantum memory.
III Claims 15, drawn to a method for screening polypeptides.
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “a qubit being a polypeptide”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Mershin. The teachings by Mershin show that this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
Status of the Claims
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are pending.
Claims 11, 15, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected groups, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/16/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16 are examined.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected.
Priority
This application US 17/609,724 (11/08/2021) is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/062514 (05/06/2020) and claims benefit of Foreign Application EPO 19305594.4 (05/09/2019) as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 04/14/2022. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 1-2, 4-10,12-14 and 16 is 05/09/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2021 and 07/10/2024 were considered. The information disclosure statement filed 03/04/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include the following description: Fig. 4 describes "transfert" instead of transfer.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CPR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 3 7 CPR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in pg.4 lines 31 and 32. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Requirements for patent applications containing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosures
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures:
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. In this instant application, claim 7 include amino acid sequence IDs and there is no sequence listing in the disclosure. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a "Sequence Listing" has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the "Sequence Listing" in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the "Sequence Listing.".
Required response - Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with
An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide:
A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and
A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings in claim 7 are not identified by sequence identifiers in the disclosure in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim interpretation
35 U.S.C 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. l 12(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 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. l 12(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. l 12(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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;
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
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” or the generic placeholder) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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” or the generic placeholder) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step” or the generic placeholder) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations that use the terms "writing unit" and “reading unit” being interpreted under 112(f) are:
a writing unit adapted to write data in the memory space, and a reading unit adapted to read the data stored in the memory space (claim 4).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As it appears in the instant specification and claims, there is insufficient structure/function relationship to accurately describe the recited terms "writing unit" and “reading unit.” The corresponding structure in the instant specification is a "method of storing data in a quantum memory comprises a step of writing and a step of reading" (pg. 6 lines 18-32, and thus the steps are interpreted as computer-implemented. The specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim lacks description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and it is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (MPEP 2181 (II)(B)).
Claim 4 recites “a writing unit adapted to write data in the memory space, and a reading unit adapted to read the data stored in the memory space.” The disclosure fails to recite the algorithm to perform the recited functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See below regarding issues under 112(a) and 112(b) arising from this claim interpretation.
Claim Terminology
Claim 2 recites "wherein the ratio between the number of qubits which are a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure and the total number of qubits is superior or equal to 70%" which is being interpreted as the percentage of a signal qubit (logical qubit carrying information) stored as a fraction of the total number of qubits (physical system).
Claim 12 recites "for use for improving the performance of the quantum memory of an organ operating in cooperation with other organs, the operation being modelled at least partly as a quantum memory" which is interpreted as intended use, not further limiting. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) pertains. Thus, the claim is interpreted as only requiring a polypeptide comprising an alpha helix as in claim 1.
Claim objections
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, the extra space between lines 7 and 8 should be removed.
In claim 7, the recited "claim_1" should read "claim 1." It is noted that as the claim status is “Previously Presented”, this marking is not considered to indicate an amendment to the claim.
In claim 10, the recited "Apparatus" should recite "An apparatus."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
112(a) rejections related to enablement issues:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Dependent claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted below.
Claim 1 recites “a memory space comprising qubits, wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.” Claim 12 is interpreted as requiring only “a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.” However, based on the instant disclosure and the prior art, it would require an undue amount of experimentation to perform the above recited steps for all possible polypeptides comprising an alpha helix, as demonstrated by the consideration of the eight factors of enablement below.
In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988)) considered the issue of enablement in molecular biology. The following eight factors were to be taken into account: (a) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (b) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (c) the presence or absence of working examples; (d) the nature of the invention; (e) the state of the prior art; (f) the relative skill of those in the art; (g) the predictability of the art; and (h) the breadth of the claims. In considering these factors for the instant claims:
a) In order to practice the claimed invention, one of skill in the art must be able to consider every possible polypeptide that comprises at least one alpha helix secondary structure. For the reasons below, there would be an unpredictable amount of experimentation required to practice the claimed invention.
b) and c) The specification filed 11/08/2021 restates that each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure. However, this disclosure is merely a restatement of the claims themselves and there is no indication of how to investigate all possible polypeptides comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.
d) The nature of the invention is drawn to a memory space comprising qubits.
e) The prior art discloses numerous reviews and articles regarding quantum computing architectures involving peptides.
Kassal (Annual review of physical chemistry 62(1):185-207 (2011), newly cited) discloses a review of algorithms that achieve advantages for the electronic-structure problem, the simulation of chemical dynamics and protein folding (pg. 1 Abstract). Kassal discloses the use of quantum computers applied to the optimization of lattice folding problems involving peptides (pg. 12 para. 7); wherein various degrees of freedom and computational resources are required to encode quantum information (pg. 14 para. 3) and full quantum characterization generally requiring resources that scale exponentially with the number of qubits (pg. 9 para. 2).
Oldfield (Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 53(1):349-378 (2002), newly cited) discloses a review of quantum chemical (ab initio Hartree-Fock and density functional theory) techniques to investigate amino acids, peptides and proteins (pg. 349 Abstract). Oldfield discloses that quantum chemical geometry optimization of small proteins requiring larger computational resources and refined codes (pg. 363 para. 3).
f) The relative skill of those in memory space comprising qubits wherein each qubit is a polypeptide is high.
g) The prior art discloses numerous reviews and articles regarding investigation of polypeptides using quantum architectures.
Kassal (Annual review of physical chemistry 62(1):185-207 (2011), newly cited) discloses a review of algorithms that achieve advantages for the electronic-structure problem, the simulation of chemical dynamics and protein folding (pg. 1 Abstract). Kassal discloses the use of quantum computers applied to the optimization of lattice folding problems involving peptides (pg. 12 para. 7); wherein various degrees of freedom and computational resources are required to encode quantum information (pg. 14 para. 3) and full quantum characterization generally requiring resources that scale exponentially with the number of qubits (pg. 9 para. 2).
Oldfield (Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 53(1):349-378 (2002), newly cited) discloses a review of quantum chemical (ab initio Hartree-Fock and density functional theory) techniques to investigate amino acids, peptides and proteins (pg. 349 Abstract). Oldfield discloses that quantum chemical geometry optimization of small proteins requiring larger computational resources and refined codes (pg. 363 para. 3).
Based on these teachings, it is clear that there would be an undue amount of experimentation necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention including every possible polypeptide that comprises at least one alpha helix secondary structure. Even for the specifically claimed memory space comprising qubits wherein each qubit is a polypeptide, neither the instant specification nor the prior art provides guidance on the inclusion of all possible polypeptides that comprise at least one alpha helix. As such, there is an undue amount of experimentation to perform the above recited claim limitations.
h) The claims encompass investigating a memory space comprising qubits wherein each qubit is a polypeptide.
112(a) rejections related to lack of written description:
Claims 1, 7 and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a memory space comprising qubits, wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.” Claim 12 is interpreted as requiring only “a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.” As recited, the claims require the claimed steps being applied to all possible polypeptides comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure. However, this disclosure is merely a restatement of the claims themselves and there is no indication of how to ascertain all possible polypeptides comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure, or that Applicant had possession of all possible polypeptides comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure at the time of filing. 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. See MPEP 2163.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the polypeptide is selected from the group consisting of Plannexin (SEQ ID NO:1), FGL (SEQ ID NO:2), peptide P2 (SEQ ID NO:3), Diptericin B (SEQ ID NO:4), PTEN-PDZ (SEQ ID NO:5), GNBP-Like3 (SEQ ID NO:6), Peptide 6 (SEQ ID NO:7), PTD4-P13KAc (SEQ ID NO:8), Substance P (SEQ ID NO:9), Somatostatin (SEQ ID NO:10), Vasoactive intestinal peptide (SEQ ID NO :11), pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (SEQ ID NO :12), Calcitonin gene-related peptide (SEQ ID NO :13), Ghrelin (SEQ ID NO :14), Obestatin SEQ ID NO :15), Neuro-peptide S (SEQ ID NO:16), and Cocaine-and amphetamine-regulated transcript peptide (SEQ ID NO :17)." However, there is not support within the specification, nor has Applicant provided such support, for any of the recited sequence listings described in the claim. 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. See MPEP 2163.
112(a) rejections related to 112(f):
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted.
The following recitations cause the indicated claims to be rejected under 112(a):
"a writing unit adapted to write data in the memory space, and a reading unit adapted to read the data stored in the memory space” (claim 4).
The recited "writing unit" and "reading unit" (claim 4) are interpreted as computer-implemented. There is not support within the specification, nor has Applicant provided such support, for an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. 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. See MPEP 2163. MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains. As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by amending so as not to invoke 112(f) and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations in order to satisfy 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2, 5-7, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the invention. Dependent claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted below. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112(b) as indefinite:
Claim 2 recites both a broad and narrow range in the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, parent claim 1 recites the broad recitation "wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure" (i.e. 100% of qubits being a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure) and claim 2 also recites "wherein the ratio between the number of qubits which are a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure and the total number of qubits is superior or equal to 70%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites "wherein the writing unit is an electronic circuitry" which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, the claim may be amended to depend on claim 4 instead of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites "wherein the reading unit is an electronic circuitry" which lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, the claim may be amended to depend on claim 4 instead of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites SEQ IDs in parenthesis; which is indefinite because it recites exemplary claim language (see MPEP 2173.05(d)). It is unclear if the SEQ ID refers to the preceding term or if it is just exemplary. Considering no sequence listing has been disclosed to describe the recited SEQ IDs, the claim is being interpreted not requiring the actual sequences.
The following recitations require but lack antecedent basis, rendering their claims indefinite because there is no previous recitations of the followings terms as written:
claim 12, "the performance"
claim 13, "the brain"
claim 14, "the memory capacities"
claim 14, "the learning capacities"
claim 14, "the reconnaissance capacities"
112(b) rejections related to 112(f):
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention at least due to the 112(f) issues identified in the above interpretations section. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as satisfy 112(f).
The following recitations cause the indicated claims to be rejected under 112(b):
"a writing unit adapted to write data in the memory space, and a reading unit adapted to read the data stored in the memory space” (claim 4).
The recited "writing unit" and "reading unit" (claim 4) are interpreted as computer-implemented. The disclosure fails to recite the algorithm to perform the recited functions. It is unclear what is the physical structure related to an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by amending so as not to invoke 112(f) and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations in order to satisfy 112(f). For more information, see MPEP 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim Interpretation: As amended, claims 1-2, 4-10,12-14 and 16 are drawn to a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure. Pagel ("Directing the secondary structure of polypeptides at will: from helices to amyloids and back again?." Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry 3(21):3843-3850 (2005), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892) describes the inherent secondary structure aspect of naturally occurring peptides and proteins (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 3845 col. 2 para. 4) which inherently comprises alpha helices (pg. 3845 col. 1para. 1). According to the instant specification, the recited a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure exist in a mammalian or non-mammalian animal, more specifically a rodent, a feline, or a primate, such as a monkey or a human, hence naturally-occurring (pg. 7 line 24). Given a broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1-2, 4-10,12-14 and 16 are directed to a naturally-occurring polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 1: The claims are drawn to a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite a naturally occurring polypeptides, which is considered to be a law of nature or natural phenomena (a natural product). Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-10,12-14 and 16 are directed to a judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: There are no additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception.
Patent Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The claims only recite the product of nature, without more and do not include any additional elements that could add significantly more to the judicial exception.
As such, the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter. For these reasons the claim is rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. MPEP 608.01(n).III pertains. In the present instance, parent claim 1 recites "wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure" (i.e. 100% of qubits being a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure) and claim 2 recites "wherein the ratio between the number of qubits which are a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure and the total number of qubits is superior or equal to 70%" which is not clearly limiting, and it is not clear that the rest of the claim differs in scope from claim 1. MPEP 2111.02 pertains. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(l) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mershin ("Quantum brain?" arXiv preprint quant-ph/0007088 (2000)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 1 recites:
a memory space comprising qubits, wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure
• Mershin teaches a model of memory and brain function focusing on the sub-molecular (electron), molecular (tubulin) and macromolecular (microtubule) components of the neural cytoskeleton (i.e. brain components) (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the tubulin protein molecule is treated as a quantum unit (qubit) in a quantum-computational network of microtubules (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein tubulin is a protein composed of multiple two distinct polypeptide chains named α and β-tubulin (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 13 Fig. 4); wherein each tubulin subunit is a polar dimer of length of about 8nm and it consists of two slightly different classes of a 4nm, 55kD (kilo-Dalton) monomer known as α and β-tubulin (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 11 para. 3); wherein the tubulin dimer subunits within microtubules are arranged in a hexagonal twisted lattice, and helical pathways that repeat every 3, 5 and 8 rows (i.e. each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure) (pg. 11 para. 3).
Claim 2 recites:
a memory space comprising qubits, wherein each qubit is a polypeptide comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure
• Mershin teaches a model of memory and brain function focusing on the sub-molecular (electron), molecular (tubulin) and macromolecular (microtubule) components of the neural cytoskeleton (i.e. brain components) (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the tubulin protein molecule is treated as a quantum unit (qubit) in a quantum-computational network of microtubules (pg. 1 Abstract). The amended claim 1 requires all qubit being a polypeptide comprising at least an alpha helix secondary structure which is taught by Mershin. Claim 2 does not further limit claim 1 because it requires 70% of the qubits to comprise polypeptides comprising at least an alpha helix secondary structure; while claim 1 requires 100%. (See Claim interpretation and Claim rejections above.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the quantum memory further comprises: a writing unit adapted to write data in the memory space, and a reading unit adapted to read the data stored in the memory space
• Mershin teaches a model that focuses on the role of the neuronal (microtubular) cytoskeleton and its accessory proteins during information storage (i.e. writing information in the brain) and retrieval (i.e. reading information from the brain) (pg. 11 para. 1) via an integrated and ”delocalized” way of handling data that makes the machine capable of retrieving stored information in much the same way the human brain does during pattern recognition (i.e. information previously stored/written in the brain) (pg. 16 para. 2); wherein information can be stored as patterns of 0’s and 1’s corresponding to the conformational states of the tubulin dimers with protofilaments and whole microtubules acting as memory clusters analogous to RAM in digital computers (i.e. writing and reading unit adapted for the memory space) (pg. 7 para. 3).
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the writing unit is an electronic circuitry
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the reading unit is an electronic circuitry
• Mershin teaches that information manipulation is done via electromagnetic and quantum mechanical interactions between tubulin dimers, protofilaments, microtubules and microtubules associated proteins (i.e. electronic circuitry for the writing and reading processes as in claims 5-6) (pg. 7 para. 3).
• Mershin teaches a model that focuses on the role of the neuronal (microtubular) cytoskeleton and its accessory proteins during information storage (i.e. writing information in the brain) and retrieval (i.e. reading information from the brain) (pg. 11 para. 1) via an integrated and ”delocalized” way of handling data that makes the machine capable of retrieving stored information in much the same way the human brain does during pattern recognition (i.e. reading information previously stored/written in the brain) (pg. 16 para. 2); wherein information can be stored as patterns of 0’s and 1’s corresponding to the conformational states of the tubulin dimers with protofilaments and whole microtubules acting as memory clusters analogous to RAM in digital computers (i.e. writing and reading unit adapted for the memory space) (pg. 7 para. 3).
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the memory space comprises several identical pairs of qubits
• Mershin teaches a model of memory and brain function focusing on the sub-molecular (electron), molecular (tubulin) and macromolecular (microtubule) components of the neural cytoskeleton (i.e. brain components) (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the tubulin protein molecule is treated as a quantum unit (qubit) in a quantum-computational network of microtubules (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein tubulin is a protein composed of multiple two distinct polypeptide chains named α and β-tubulin (i.e. polypeptides) (pg. 13 Fig. 4); wherein the tubulin are subunits of microtubules (pg. 11 para. 3). The subunits of microtubules are taught as multiple identical tubulin and with each qubit representing a tubulin. Therefore, Mershin teaches a memory space comprises several identical pairs of qubits.
Claim 10 recites:
comprising at least one quantum memory
• Mershin teaches a quantum mechanical model of brain function where a single neuron is upgraded from a relatively simple (yet adjustable) switch to a device capable of information processing (i.e. apparatus comprising quantum memory) (pg. 3 para. 5).
Claim 12 recites:
comprising at least one alpha helix secondary structure for use for improving the performance of the quantum memory of an organ operating in cooperation with other organs, the operation being modelled at least partly as a quantum memory
Claim 13 recites:
wherein the organ is the brain
• Mershin teaches the application of quantum computers to model the brain (i.e. as in claim 13) (pg. 16 para. 1); wherein individual components (for instance correlated visual and auditory memories) are stored at macroscopically separated regions of the neural network (i.e. operating in cooperation with other organs) (pg. 2 para. 3); wherein in the quantum memory model, a single neuron is upgraded from a relatively simple (yet adjustable) switch to a device capable of information processing (i.e. improving the performance of the quantum memory of an organ) (pg. 3 para. 5).
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the performance of the quantum memory is evaluated by evaluating at least one criterion chosen in the list consisting in the memory capacities of the organ, the learning capacities of the organ and the reconnaissance capacities of the organ
• Mershin teaches that in the quantum memory model, a single neuron is upgraded from a relatively simple (yet adjustable) switch to a device capable of information processing (i.e. improving the performance of the quantum memory of an organ) (pg. 3 para. 5); wherein prediction were tested by examining the effects that learning and memory encoding have on the microtubules of a living animal by designing and are performing several indirect neurobiological experiments (i.e. evaluating at least one criterion chosen in the list consisting in the memory capacities of the organ, the learning capacities of the organ and the reconnaissance capacities of the organ) (pg. 22 para. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mershin as applied to claim 1 in the 102 rejection above in view of Shaw ("Encoding one logical qubit into six physical qubits." Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 78(1):012337 (2008)),as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the memory space comprises less than 100 qubits
Claim 16 recites:
wherein the memory space comprises less than 20 qubits
• Mershin does not teach the recitations above. However, Shaw teaches methods for encoding one logical qubit into six physical qubits (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the total number of qubits in the system is 6 (i.e. less than 100 qubits as in claim 8 and less than 20 as in claim 16).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 8 and 16, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Mershin in view of Shaw because all references disclose methods for the investigation of quantum architecture. The motivation would have been to implement an encoding circuit for the operations required for logical qubit into a qubit system (pg. 9 col. 2 para. 3 Shaw).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the quantum architecture method of Mershin to the methods by Shaw because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation of quantum architecture.
B. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mershin as applied to claim 1 in the 102 rejection above in view of Reddy ("Solution structures of rat amylin peptide: simulation, theory, and experiment." Biophysical Journal 98(3):443-451 (2010)),as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the polypeptide is selected from the group consisting of Plannexin (SEQ ID NO:1), FGL (SEQ ID NO:2), peptide P2 (SEQ ID NO:3), Diptericin B (SEQ ID NO:4), PTEN-PDZ (SEQ ID NO:5), GNBP-Like3 (SEQ ID NO:6), Peptide 6 (SEQ ID NO:7), PTD4-P13KAc (SEQ ID NO:8), Substance P (SEQ ID NO:9), Somatostatin (SEQ ID NO:10), Vasoactive intestinal peptide (SEQ ID NO :11), pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (SEQ ID NO :12), Calcitonin gene-related peptide (SEQ ID NO :13), Ghrelin (SEQ ID NO :14), Obestatin SEQ ID NO :15), Neuro-peptide S (SEQ ID NO:16), and Cocaine-and amphetamine-regulated transcript peptide (SEQ ID NO :17)
• Mershin does not teach the recitations above. However, Reddy teaches a mixed quantum/classical approach (i.e. comprising quantum architecture) wherein multi-chromophore system is processed for amylin peptide (pg. 445 col. 2 para. 2); wherein similar studies can be done for the calcitonin gene-related peptide, which has a similar amino-acid sequence to that of human amylin, and belongs to the same hormone family (pg. 443 col. 2 para. 2).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Mershin in view of Reddy because all references disclose methods for the investigation of quantum calculations applied to peptides. The motivation would have been to incorporate simulation theory for elucidating protein structure and dynamics (pg. 449 col. 2 para. 2 Reddy).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the quantum calculations method of Mershin to the methods by Reddy because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for the investigation quantum calculations applied to peptides.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights