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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Priority
Claims 1-11 are granted the claim to the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/167594 filed 29 March 2021. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 1-11 is 29 March 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 23 February 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The BRI of “crypto farmer” is a system or entity that grows biomass or living organism which may be for example devices/equipment and resources (instant disclosure [008] and [010].
The BRI of “crop sample” is a biomass or a living organism which may be for example trees, algae, bacteria, food crops (instant disclosure [019]).
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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Claims 1-11 fall under the statutory category of a process.
(Step 2A Prong 1)
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
Independent claim 1 recites mental processes of “encoding digital transaction input into genetic data”, “decoding at least a portion of the DNA of the crop sample”, and “validating the decoded DNA of the crop sample”.
Independent claim 1 recites organizing human activity of “awarding, in response to the validating, the at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers a unit of value”.
Dependent claim 2 recites a mental process of “encoding data descriptive of the validation…”. Dependent claim 3 recites a mental process of “encoding data descriptive of the awarding…”. Dependent claim 4 recites a mental process of “comparing the decoded DNA…”. Dependent claim 6 recited mental processes of “comparing the measured amount of produce…” and “determining that the amount of produce…”. Dependent claim 7 recites a mental process of “determining from the crop sample that at least one…”. Dependent claim 8 recites a mental process of “selecting the at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers…”.
The claims recite mental processes of analyzing/evaluating data and making observations/judgments on data as encoding data into a genetic sequence, decoding DNA sequences, validating the decoded data, making comparisons, and determining a value meets a threshold, determining the crop sample is alive, and making selections. The human mind is capable of analyzing/evaluating data and making observations/judgments. The claims recite organizing human activity as awarding value to an entity. Dependent claims 9 and 10 further limit the mental process recited in the independent claim but do not change their nature as a mental process. Thus, claims 1-11 recite abstract ideas.
(Step 2A Prong 2)
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). Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in claim 1 of (i.e. receiving data, synthesizing genetic data, transferring the synthesized data to a biological host, disseminating the biological host, and receiving, after disseminating, a crop sample), the additional elements in claims 2-3 (i.e. receiving data, synthesizing genetic data, transferring the synthesized data to a biological host, disseminating the biological host), and the additional element in claim 6 (i.e. measuring an amount of produce of the crop sample) does not integrated into a practical application because this is insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and storing data. These additional elements constitute as insignificant extra solution activity because they only interact with the judicial exceptions by receiving data to be processed by the judicial exception and storing data which was operated on by the judicial exceptions.
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and claims 1-11 are directed to the abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
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 additional elements in claim 1 of receiving data, synthesizing genetic data, transferring the synthesized data to a biological host, disseminating the biological host, and receiving, after disseminating, a crop sample are conventional as shown on page 72 fig. 4.1 of Fister et al. (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. 69-81; newly cited) which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing the DNA, transforming a plant with the synthesized DNA (which further includes dissemination of the biological host to growing conditions shown on page 75 fig 4.3), receiving plant tissue, isolating DNA/amplification/sequencing, further shown on page 4 scheme 1 of Nguyen et al. (Polymers, 10(1), 28 (2018); newly cited) which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing encoded DNA, transforming a bacteria with the synthesized DNA, disseminating the bacteria to a system for a growing process, isolating DNA/amplification/sequencing, and shown on pages 4-5 and 8 of Sun et al. which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing encoded DNA, transforming the synthesized DNA into biological hosts, disseminating the biological host to a system for a growing process.
The additional elements in claims 2-3 of receiving data, synthesizing genetic data, transferring the synthesized data to a biological host, and disseminating the biological host are conventional as shown on page 72 fig. 4.1 of Fister et al. (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. 69-81; newly cited) which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing the DNA, transforming a plant with the synthesized DNA (which further includes dissemination of the biological host to growing conditions shown on page 75 fig 4.3) and shown on page 4 scheme 1 of Nguyen et al. (Polymers, 10(1), 28 (2018); newly cited) which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing the DNA, transforming a bacteria with the synthesized DNA, disseminating the bacteria through a growing process, isolating DNA/amplification/sequencing and shown on pages 4-5 and 8 of Sun et al. (Medical Research Archives 7.6 (2019) newly cited). which shows receiving digital information, synthesizing encoded DNA, transforming the synthesized DNA into biological hosts, disseminating the biological host to a system for a growing process.
The additional element in claim 6 of measuring an amount of produce of the crop sample is conventional as shown on pages 6-7 of Nguyen et al. (Polymers, 10(1), 28 (2018); newly cited) as shown by measuring the number of colonies and pages 4-5 and 8 of Sun et al. (Medical Research Archives 7.6 (2019) newly cited) as shown by measuring the amount of leaves of a plant.
The additional elements are shown in combination by Nguyen et al. (Polymers, 10(1), 28 (2018); newly cited) and Sun et al. (Medical Research Archives 7.6 (2019) newly cited) which shows all the additional elements in combination.
Thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Polymers, 10(1), 28 (2018); newly cited) in view of Sarmah (Computer science and engineering 8.2 (2018): 23-29. (Year: 2018); newly cited).
Independent claim 1 is directed to receiving digital transaction input, encoding the digital transaction input into genetic data
Nguyen et al. shows receiving digital information and encoding the digital information into a DNA sequence (Nguyen et al. section 3.1 pages 4-5, page 4 scheme 1 and figure 1).
synthesizing the encoded genetic data
Nguyen et al. shows synthesizing the encoded DNA sequence (Nguyen et al. section 3.2 page 5 and page 4 scheme 1).
transferring the synthesized encoded genetic data to a biologic host
Nguyen et al. shows transferring the synthesized encoded DNA into E. coli (Nguyen et al. page 4 scheme 1 and page 6 last para. – page 7).
disseminating the biologic host to a plurality of crypto farmers, receiving, after the disseminating, a crop sample from at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers
Nguyen et al. shows growing the transformed E. coli and then isolating/sequencing the encoded DNA retrieved from the E. coli (Nguyen et al. page 4 scheme 1).
decoding at least a portion of the DNA of the crop sample
Nguyen et al. shows decoding DNA sequences retrieved from the E. coli sequencing operation (Nguyen et al. page 4 scheme 1 and section 3.4 page 9).
validating the decoded DNA of the crop sample
Nguyen et al. shows after decoding, the document identity between the original text and the retrieved text was examined using a program that compares both folders and files and shows that the two documents are perfectly identical (Nguyen et al. page 9 section 3.4 para. 2).
Nguyen et al does not show receiving transaction data and awarding, in response to the validating, the at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers a unit of value.
When combined with Nguyen et al., Sarmah shows receiving digital transaction data to be encoded into a biological host for DNA based storage which can be used to award monetary value. Sarmah shows a Blockchain which receives digital transaction data such as a request to move money from A to B and then processes this request into a block which stores information, broadcasts the block to a network which keeps records and validates the transaction and then awards monetary value after validation (Sarmah page 25 right col.).
Claim 2 is directed to encoding data descriptive of the validation of the crop sample into new genetic data, synthesizing the new encoded genetic data, transferring the synthesized new encoded genetic data to a new biologic host, and disseminating the new biologic host to the plurality of crypto farmers.
Nguyen et al. in view of Sarmah shows a decentralized ledger (which is a shared and replicated database which is synchronized among members of the network) contains data about validation (Sarmah page 24 right col. and page 25 left col). Nguyen et al. in view of Sarmah shows receiving this validation information, encoding the digital information into a DNA sequence, synthesizing the encoded DNA sequence, transferring the synthesized encoded DNA into E. coli, and growing the transformed E. coli (Nguyen et al. page 4 scheme 1).
Claim 3 is directed to encoding data descriptive of the awarding of the unit of value into new genetic data; synthesizing the new encoded genetic data; transferring the synthesized new encoded genetic data to a new biologic host; and disseminating the new biologic host to the plurality of crypto farmers.
Nguyen et al. in view of Sarmah shows a decentralized ledger (which is a shared and replicated database which is synchronized among members of the network) contains data about the transaction which is data descriptive of awarding value (Sarmah page 24 right col. and page 25 left col). Nguyen et al. in view of Sarmah shows receiving this transaction information, encoding the digital information into a DNA sequence, synthesizing the encoded DNA sequence, transferring the synthesized encoded DNA into E. coli, and growing the transformed E. coli (Nguyen et al. page 4 scheme 1).
Claim 4 is directed to comparing the decoded DNA of the crop sample to reference data stored in a database.
Nguyen et al. shows after decoding, the document identity between the original text and the retrieved text was examined using a program that compares both folders and files and shows that the two documents are perfectly identical (Nguyen et al. page 9 section 3.4 para. 2).
Claim 5 is directed to measuring at least one of a height and a mass of the crop sample, comparing the measured at least one of the height and the mass of the crop sample to a stored threshold and determining that the at least one of the height and the mass of the crop sample exceeds the stored threshold.
Nguyen et al. shows the transformed cells were grown at 37 degrees Celsius to an OD600 (optical density) of 0.6 (Nguyen et al.). This optical density is directly related to mass of E. coli through conversion factors thus providing the same conceptual information about the amount of E. coli present when grown (as evidence by page 11-12 Table 1 of Myers et al. (BMC Biophys 6, 4 (2013); newly cited)).
Claim 6 is directed to measuring an amount of produce of the crop sample, comparing the measured amount of produce to a stored threshold, and determining that the amount of produce of the crop sample exceeds the stored threshold.
Nguyen et al. shows the encoded plasmid DNA was transformed in E. coli and the functional integrity was calculated based on the transformation efficiency as CFU (colony-forming unit) numbers of colonies/ ng transformed DNA (Nguyen et al. page 6 last para. – page 7). It is interpreted that the number of colonies is the produce of the crop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare the amount of produce and determine if there is a certain level of produce because the colonies of bacteria that are able to grow and sustain themselves make for better storage system.
Claim 7 is directed to determining from the crop sample that at least one biologic unit comprising the decoded DNA is alive at a current time.
Nguyen et al. shows performing functionality tests in E. coli which revealed that all plasmid DNA plasmid samples where biologically active (Nguyen et al. page 8 para. 1).
Claim 8 is directed to selecting the at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers from the plurality of crypto farmers. Claim 9 is directed to wherein the selecting comprises a random selection. Claim 10 is directed to wherein the selecting is conducted based on a determination that the at least one of the plurality of crypto farmers has reached a target threshold before other crypto farmers.
Nguyen et al. shows competent E. coli transformed cells were spread on ampicillin plates and an analysis of transformation efficiency (or colony formation unit) was performed for several samples (Nguyen et al. page 8). It would have been obvious to select the system that grew the most colonies in the overnight incubation because this would provide a system that can produce and sustain bacterial colonies. It would have been further obvious to select one of the six systems because they all performed similarly (Nguyen et al. page 8).
Claim 11 is directed to wherein the biologic host comprises at least one of a tree, algae, bacterium, and a food crop.
Nguyen et al. shows that the biological host is a bacterium (i.e. E. coli) (Nguyen et al. scheme 1).
An invention would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the method of storing digital information in E. coli utilizing encoded synthetic DNA of Nguyen et al. with the method of receiving transaction information which is used to keep a transparent record of transactions and award monetary value to an entity of Sarmah because this would allow for a method that can store digital transaction information in biological hosts and keep record of verified transactions and award monetary value once verified (Sarmah page 25 right col. – left col.). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Nguyen et al. shows a method of encoding digital information into a DNA sequence which is synthesized and stored in a biological host (which can be retrieved) while Sarmah shows a method of recording digital transaction information which is used for awarding value.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/J.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685