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 129-147 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
Information Disclosure Statements
The IDSs filed have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 128-145 and 147 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 128-133 and 138-141 are drawn to a computer system comprising an array, claims 134-137 and 142-145 are drawn to methods, and claim 147 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
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:
The independent claims recite the mental step of mapping at least two possible states.
The independent claims recite the mental steps of representing the reaction site as a variable and a site coupling to be a parameter.
The independent claims recite the mental step of allowing the array to evolve from an initial array with variables and parameters to a final array with variables and parameters.
Claims 134, 142, and 147 recite the mental step of associating the reaction sites with physicochemical properties.
Claims 134, 138, 142, and 147 recite the mental steps of iteratively performing read outs and evolutions until a termination condition is attained.
Claims 129, 136, and 144 recite the mental steps of constraining the coupling and/or Hamiltonian conditions.
Claims 135 and 143 recite the mental step of constraining the variables to be binary variables.
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) 128-145 and 147 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 128-145 and 147 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.
The document of Vogelstein et al. [PNAS, volume 96, 1999, pages 9236-9241] teaches that conducting assays on microarrays (and then imaging these microarrays) containing colored droplets of liquid are is routine and conventional in the prior art.
The document of Hilton et al. [US PGPUB 2007/0239366 A1; on IDS] teaches that hybrid classical quantum computing using Hamiltonians is routine and conventional in the prior art.
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. The limitation for treating the tumor cells equate to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way because the treating step is so generically recited. 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 128-145 and 147 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 146 is NOT rejected under this statute because the core of the claim involves applying perturbations to reaction sites to promote state changes using simulated annealing and/or stochastic gradient descent, which are too complex to be performed in the human mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #1:
Claim(s) 128-129, 133-136, 138, 141-144, and 146-147 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton et al. [US PGPUB 2007/0239366 A1; on IDS].
Claim 128 is drawn to a molecular computer system for solving a computational problem represented as a problem Hamiltonian expressed in terms of a set of problem variables and a set of problem parameters. The molecular computer system comprises an array of reaction sites having a physicochemical property that maps to at least two possible site states. Each reaction site represents one of the problem variables wherein the reaction sites have site couplings enforced thereon that represent the problem parameters. The method requires that the array is allowed to evolve, starting from an initial array configuration and subjected to the enforced site couplings, toward a final array configuration in which each reaction site is in one of the at least two possible site states wherein the final array configuration provides a solution to the computational problem.
Claim 134 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 128, with the additional limitations of pertaining to a physicochemical property and evolving the couplings on the array until an end condition is attained.
Claim 138 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 128, except claim 138 is drawn to a hybrid classical-molecular computer system with further iterative conditions on whether (or not) an end condition is attained.
Claim 142 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 134, except claim 138 is drawn to a hybrid classical-molecular computer system with further iterative conditions on whether (or not) an end condition is attained.
Claim 147 is drawn to similar subject matter as claim 142, except claim 142 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
The document of Hilton et al. studies a hybrid classical-quantum computer architecture for molecular modeling [title]. Claim 1 of Hilton et al. teaches a hybrid classical-quantum computer system that iteratively updates the atomic coordinates of a molecular system until a termination condition is reached. The equations on pages 16-17 of Hilton et al. teach Hamiltonians. Figure 6 and paragraph 112 of Hilton et al. teach arrays of reaction sites as receptor site grid points per dimension as described for hydrogen, water, glycine, and caffeine examples in paragraphs 152-155 and Table of Hilton et al. Table 1 on page 13 of Hilton et al. lists examples of physicochemical properties of a molecule, such as, number of electrons in a specified molecule, along with associated parameters such as spatial dimension and number of qubits required to describe a spatial grid per dimension for the specified molecule. These properties of Table 1 on page 13 of Hilton et al. are used to model quantum dynamics of the molecular system in order to calculate the ground state energy and associated atomic coordinates for the molecule as described in paragraphs 151-154 of Hilton et al.
Figure 6 and paragraphs 33 and 157 of Hilton et al. maps to at least two possible states in that each electron of the molecule can be located anywhere on a three-dimensional grid mapped for x-y plane states 00, 01, 10, and 11. Paragraphs 151-155 of Hilton teach quantum mechanical computing with qubit couplings. Section 5.5.4 on pages 18-19 of Hilton et al. teach extracting ground state energy to read-out registers for the final iteration of calculations.
With regard to claims 129, 136, 144, and 146; Figure 6 and paragraph 151-155 of Hilton et al. teach inter- and intra- site couplings. Paragraphs 118-119 of Hilton teach simulated annealing, and paragraph 119 of Hilton et al. suggests the Ising formulations of QUBO problems.
With regard to claims 135 and 143, Figure 6 and paragraphs 33 and 157 of Hilton et al. maps to at least two possible states in that each electron of the molecule can be located anywhere on a three-dimensional grid mapped for x-y plane states 00, 01, 10, and 11.
With regard to claims 133 and 141, Section 5.5.4 on pages 18-19 of Hilton et al. teach extracting ground state energy to read-out registers for the final iteration of calculations.
While Hilton et al. does not use the same terminology as recited in the instant claims, the hybrid classical quantum computer structure of Hilton et al. solves a Hamiltonian for an equivalent situation encompassed by the interpretation of the recitations of claim limitations.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #2:
Claim(s) 132, 137, 139-140, and 145 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton et al. as applied to claims 128-129, 133-136, 138, 141-144, and 146-147 above, in further view of Vogelstein et al. [PNAS, volume 96, 1999, pages 9236-9241].
Claims 132 and 140 are further limiting wherein the physicochemical property comprises color.
Claims 137, 139, and 145 are further limiting wherein the array of reaction sites comprises an array of droplets.
The document of Hilton et al. makes obvious using a hybrid classical quantum computer for the iterative solution of a Hamiltonian regarding properties of reaction sites on an array, as discussed above.
Hilton et al. does not teach the properties of the array recited in the instantly rejected claims.
The document of Vogelstein et al. studies digital PCR [title]. Figure 1 of Vogelstein et al. illustrates microarrays holding droplets of liquid wherein each droplet has a color as a result of a conducted assay.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the hybrid classical quantum computer modeling of Hilton et al. to be applied to the droplet array assay of Vogelstein et al. because it is obvious to combine known elements in the prior art to yield a predictable result. In this instance, the array of Vogelstein et al. is an alternative to the array of Hilton et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success to combine the arrays of Hilton et al. and Vogelstein et al. because both studies are analogously applicable to using assays to determining physiochemical properties of molecular structures.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection #3:
Claim(s) 130-131 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton et al. in view of Vogelstein et al, as applied to claims 128-129 and 132-147 above, in further view of van den Brink et al. [US PGPUB 2006/0225165 A1; on IDS].
Claim 130 is further limiting wherein the intra-site couplers and the inter-site couplers are part of an electrode array. Claim 131 is further limiting wherein the array of reaction sites comprises an array of droplets
The documents of Hilton et al. and Vogelstein et al. make obvious using a hybrid classical quantum computer for the iterative solution of a Hamiltonian regarding properties of reaction sites on an array wherein the array may comprise droplets, as discussed above.
Hilton et al. and Vogelstein et al. do not teach the properties of the array recited in the instantly rejected claims.
The document of van den Brink et al. studies analog processor comprising quantum devices [title]. Figures 2-3 and 12-13 illustrate arrays of electric nodes.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the hybrid classical quantum computer modeling of Hilton et al. and the droplet array assay of Vogelstein et al. by use of the electrical nodes of van den Brink et al. because it is obvious to combine known elements in the prior art to yield a predictable result. In this instance, the electrical array of van den Brink is an alternative to the microarray of Vogelstein et al. and array of Hilton et al. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success to combine the arrays of Hilton et al., Vogelstein et al., and van den Brink et al. because all three studies are analogously applicable to using assays to determining physiochemical properties of molecular structures.
Related Art
The document of Cronin [US PGPUB 2022/0036252 A1; on IDS] teaches a chemical computer [title] with a matrix, an input device and an analytical device. The matrix is a plurality of interconnected reaction spaces holding a reaction mixture and conducing logic calculations [abstract]. Claim 2 of Cronin studies oscillation reactions. Claim 5 of Cronin studies color changing reactions.
The document of Monroe et al. [US PGPUB 2019/0205784; on IDS] studies optical control of atomic quantum bits for phase control of operation [title]. The document studies optical qubit interactions using quantum computing techniques.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 21 July 2026
Prosecution Insights