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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior art rejection are withdrawn in view of amendments filed to the claims on 16 January 2026.
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.
The following rejection is reiterated:
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 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 1-2 and 4-20 are drawn to methods.
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 receiving a reaction recipe.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of determining at least one functional group associated with the reactive molecule.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of assigning a functional group type to each of the functional groups associated with the plurality of molecules.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of determining at least one reaction rule associated with each functional group type.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of simulating a plurality of oligomer ort polymer forming reactions from the plurality of reactive molecules based on the at least one reaction rule to form a plurality of simulated oligomers or polymers.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of determining at least one oligomer or polymer structure associated with a first oligomer or polymer of the plurality of simulated oligomers or polymers.
Claim 1 recites the mental step of generating a first and a second lists of a plurality of first and second types reactive functional groups of the reactive functional groups associated with the plurality of reactive molecules.
Claim 1 recites the mental steps of randomizing the orders of the molecules on the first and second lists.
Claim 1 recites the mental steps of associating the types of molecules on the first and second randomized lists.
Claim 2 recites the mental step of associating at least one functional group associated with the plurality of reactive molecules with at least one other functional group associated with the plurality of reactive molecules.
Claim 4 recites the mental step of generating statistical reaction data based on the plurality of oligomer or polymer forming reactions.
Claim 5 recites the mental step of associating at least one pair of the functional groups associated with the plurality of reactive molecules based on the at least one reaction rule to form a bonded pair.
Claim 6 recites the mental step of assigning a bonded group identifier associated with the bonded pair.
Claim 7 recites the mental step of associating a first pair and a second pair of functional groups associated with the reactive molecules based on the at least one reaction rule to form a first and a second bonded pair.
Claim 8 recites the mental step of adjusting the at least one reaction rule between associating the first pair of functional groups and associating the second pair of functional groups.
Claim 9 recites the mental step of determining at least one characteristic associated with the first oligomer or polymer.
Claim 10 recites the mental step of constraining the types of characteristics identified.
Claim 11 recites the mental step of determining at least one expected property associated with the characteristic.
Claims 12 and 20 recite the mental step of constraining the types of expected properties.
Claim 13 recites the mental step of determining an extent of reaction associated with the plurality of simulated oligomer or polymer forming reactions.
Claim 14 recites the mental step of requiring the at least one reaction rule to comprise a relative reactivity of at least one functional group type.
Claim 15 recites the mental step of requiring the at least one reaction rule to comprise a first functional group type capable of undergoing a reaction with a second functional group type.
Claim 16 recites the mental steps of simulations the initial and subsequent oligomers and polymers.
Claim 17 recites the mental step of generating reaction instructions for forming the first oligomer or polymer.
Claim 18 recites the mental step of communicating the reaction instructions to a reactor to cause the reactor to initiated preparation of the first oligomer or polymer.
Claim 19 recites the mental step of determining simulated danglers, sols, and elastic links.
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) 1-2 and 4-20 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 1-2 and 4-20 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 1-2 and 4-20 is/are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea because the number of steps in the claims result in complex data manipulation. This argument is not persuasive because, even if the claims recite a large number of limitations that can be performed on pen and paper, the claims recite abstract ideas in the form of mental steps.
Applicant argues that differential equations are too complex to be performed in the mind. While modeling polymerization may involve differential equations, the claims do not require the modeling of polymerization to involve differential equations.
Applicant argues that the claims result in the practical application and improvement to a technical field of simulating an empirical experiment. This argument is not persuasive because simulating an empirical experiment, by itself, is not a practical application or improvement to a technical field.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The claims free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach the rule based simulation of oligomers or polymers in combination with analysis of a plurality of lists of randomized types of functional groups.
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.
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 10 March 2026