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 .
Applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection, filed 30 December 2025, has been entered and fully considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-3, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-11, 15 and 19 are pending and are examined on the merits.
Priority
As detailed on the 04/25/2022 filing receipt, this application claims benefit over 371 of PCT/CN2020/093287, filed on 05/29/2020. A priority as early as 05/29/2020 is given to this application.
Withdrawn Rejections/Objections
The rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102 and 103 in the Office action posted 10/1/2025 are withdrawn in view of claim amendment filed 12/30/2025.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1, 4-11, 15 and 19 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recite(s)
A step of topological rearrangement is performed wherein an atomic sequence of a target structure is rearranged referring to a reference structure using a two-dimensional topological rearrangement method;
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
A step of judging of equivalent atoms is performed by judging equivalent atoms in a topological structure;
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
A step of measuring and marking is performed by marking an atomic chiral information of a rearranged structure and the reference structure;
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
A step wherein a second rearrangement is performed by referring to the reference structure for the second rearrangement of the atomic sequence for the rearranged structure.
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
Wherein the atomic sequence is two-dimensional sequence,
This step reads on information processed by a mental activity that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
Wherein the step of measuring and marking is marking the atomic sequence chiral information of the rearranged structure and the reference structure according to an atomic chirality measurement and marking method.
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
Wherein the atomic chirality measurement and marking method comprises: taking a central atom as a starting point, and taking dihedral angles of atoms connected to the central atom in a clockwise direction, wherein the selected atom must contain equivalent atoms; if the dihedral angle is greater than 0, marking the two atoms with a same topology as True and False in the order of taking the atoms; and if the dihedral angle is less than 0, marking the two atoms with the same topology as False and True in the order of taking the atoms.
This step reads on a process that can be performed by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-11, 15 and 19 further recite additional limitations characterizing the atomic sequence rearrangement by processes that read on mathematics or mental steps. The dependent claims are therefore drawn to further abstract idea steps.
Step 2A Prong Two: Consideration of Practical Application
The claims result in a set of atomic sequence rearrangement steps. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claims as a whole, reads on an algorithm.
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.
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Instead, the claims as a whole, reads on an algorithm which is entirely an abstract idea or series of steps that can be performed by the human mind.
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 Applicant’s Arguments
In the Remarks filed 12/30/2025, Applicant argues (page 6, 2nd para through 3rd para) that claim 1 recited four progressive technical steps and is not directed to an abstractive idea. Applicant’s argument refers to Step 2A/Prong one in the 101 analysis.
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The logical abstractive has nothing to do with the “abstract idea” in 101 analysis. Instant claim 1 recites data (or information) analysis steps that can be achieved in human mind. At the end of claim 1, there is nothing physical changed. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to abstract idea of mental processes in 101 analysis.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues (page 7, and page 8, 1st para) that claim 1 leads to beneficial technical effects and solve the problem of inconsistent atomic sequence. Applicant’s argument refers to Step 2A/Prong two in the 101 analysis.
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. To integrate abstract ideas into a practical application at Step 2A/Prong two, the judicial exceptions need be applied by, captured in and reflected by additional element other than the judicial exceptions. However, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A/Prong two.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues (page 8, and page 8, 1st para) that claim 1 recites combination of specific technical steps that solves rearrangement errors caused by 3D features. Applicant’s argument refers to Step 2B in the 101 analysis.
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. At Step 2B in the 101 analysis, additional elements are searched to identify “significantly more”. However, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application at Step 2B.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOZHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GL/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights