DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 14 May 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 are rejected.
Priority
This application claims benefit of 63/219,578, filed 08 July 2021.
Therefore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 08 July 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 14 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Applicant’s amendment received 14 May 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of interpretation are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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. 112(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. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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”) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 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”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
an optimization engine, in claims 1, 12, and 20.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The written description discloses a corresponding structure for the generic placeholder:
an optimization engine, in claims 1, 12, and 20, at para. [0025] (e.g., an algorithm for software); and at para. [0028] (e.g., hardware processor for executing the software).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendment received 14 May 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 17 February 2026 has been maintained with modification in view of the amendment, as noted below.
The rejection of claims 7, 10, and 18 has been withdrawn in view of these claims having been cancelled in the amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19 and 20 have been modified as necessary to incorporate new limitations in view of the amendment.
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 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11 recite a method for deriving hidden variables based on antibody competition data to discover binding patterns (i.e., a process); claims 12-17 and 19 recite a system comprising a processor and a memory (i.e., a machine or a manufacture); and claims 20-23 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon (i.e., a machine or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
processing the antibody competition data to generate training data (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
deriving, using the training data and an optimization engine, a plurality of hidden variables and affinity scores for the hidden variables by:
optimizing logit values for the hidden variables using pairwise competition data values from the training data, wherein the hidden variables represent competition factors for the antigen that cause competition among the antibodies, and the logit values represent the antibodies' affinity scores for the hidden variables (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
outputting, by the optimization engine based on the optimizing, a model (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
generating, using the model, a pairwise competition score prediction for two antibodies that predicts competition among the two antibodies when binding to the antigen using the affinity scores for the hidden variables optimized for the two antibodies (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 12 recites a system comprising a processor and a memory for executing the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 1, as noted above.
Independent claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 1, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 21-23 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claims 2 and 13 further recite:
a first hidden variable represents a first competition factor for the antigen (i.e., mental processes), and
a derived affinity score for the first hidden variable associated with a given antibody indicates the given antibody's degree of competition over the first competition factor (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims 3 and 14 further recite:
the first competition factor corresponds to an epitope of the antigen that causes competition among the antibodies (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claims 4 and 15 further recite:
the received antibody competition data comprises data from multiple experimental runs (i.e., mental processes),
each experimental run generates data values indicative of pairwise competition among a set of antibodies (i.e., mental processes), and
the multiple experimental runs generate antibody competition data for different sets of antibodies (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claims 5 and 16 further recite:
processing the antibody competition data comprises combining the antibody competition data from the multiple experimental runs (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claims 6 and 17 further recite:
deriving the plurality of hidden variables and the affinity scores for the hidden variables comprises deriving affinity scores for the antibodies from the different sets of antibodies (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims 8 and 19 further recite:
the antibodies' logit values are optimized using a loss function, the pairwise competition data values from the training data, and a gradient technique that adjusts the logit values to optimize the loss function (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 9 further recites:
the hidden variables and the affinity scores for the hidden variables are derived by:
initially optimizing the antibodies' logit values for a first hidden variable (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
sequentially adding additional hidden variables after the initial optimization of the first hidden variable and jointly optimizing antibodies' logit values for the first hidden variable and each sequentially added additional hidden variable (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 11 further recites:
the received antibody competition data does not include pairwise competition data for the two antibodies for which the pairwise competition score is predicted (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 21 further recites:
a first hidden variable represents a first competition factor for the antigen, and a derived affinity score for the first hidden variable associated with a given antibody indicates the given antibody's degree of competition over the first competition factor (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 22 further recites:
the first competition factor corresponds to an epitope of the antigen that causes competition among the antibodies (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 23 further recites:
the antibodies' logit values are optimized using a loss function, the pairwise competition data values from the training data, and a gradient technique that adjusts the logit values to optimize the loss function (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., processing data to generate training data), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., deriving hidden variables and affinity scores) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 21-23 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 1 include:
a processor (i.e., optimization engine hardware); and
receiving antibody competition data for a plurality of antibodies and an antigen, the antibody competition data comprising data values indicative of pairwise competition between antibodies (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 12 include:
a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions; and
receive antibody competition data for a plurality of antibodies and an antigen, the antibody competition data comprising data values indicative of pairwise competition between antibodies (i.e., receive data).
The additional elements in independent claim 20 include:
a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon;
a processor; and
receive antibody competition data for a plurality of antibodies and an antigen, the antibody competition data comprising data values indicative of pairwise competition between antibodies (i.e., receive data).
The additional elements of a processor (claim 1); a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions (claim 12); and a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon (claim 20); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional element of receiving antibody competition data for a plurality of antibodies and an antigen, the antibody competition data comprising data values indicative of pairwise competition between antibodies (i.e., receiving/receive data) (claims 1, 12, and 20) is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal or tangential addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 have been considered as a whole, (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 21-23 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 20 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a processor (claim 1); a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions (claim 12); a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon (claim 20); and receiving/receive data (claims 1, 12, and 20); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 14 May 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 8 of the Remarks that if the Examiner were to maintain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 17 February 2026, in light of the amendments, it would oversimplify the claims and fail to weigh the technical recitations of the claims, The Applicant provides the amended claim 1 on pages 8-9, and further states on page 9 that the functionality of amended claim 1 is more than a mental process or mathematical concepts, as characterized in the Office action.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, each of the limitations recited by the instant claims have been evaluated in the above rejection, as evidenced by the rejection itself, and thus have not been oversimplified. Second, as noted in the above rejection, the judicial exceptions identified at Step 2A Prong One are determined to not be integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and the recited additional elements are determined to not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions at Step 2B, and therefore the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, as noted and discussed in the above rejection.
The Applicant states on page 9 of the Remarks that the specification explains the improvements recited in the claims, and points to Enfish and further points to Bascom Global, and states that the Federal Circuit has assessed whether an improvement is described in a patentee’s specification when determining the subject matter eligibility of a claim. The Applicant further states that in Enfish, the Federal Circuit provided further guidance on applying the Supreme Court’s Alice framework by finding that where claims improve the functioning of the computer itself, or improve an existing technological process, the claims should not be found under step one of the Alice framework to be directed to an abstract idea. The Applicant further states that the Enfish Court held that the conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered where the specification’s teachings indicate that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over the conventional technology, and the Federal Circuit elaborated on this holding in Bascom, where the Court held descriptions in the applicant’s specification showing that the particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art provided a rationale for finding the claims patent eligible. The Applicant further states on page 10 that the recitations of amended claim 1 achieve an improved model for predicting pairwise antibody competition data with respect to a particular antigen, and further states that the Applicant’s specification at para. [0019] describes the improvements to technology that are achieved. The Applicant further points to the Applicant’s specification at paras. [0068] – [0069] describing how the hidden variables and optimized logit values of amended claim 1 achieve a) improvements to resource efficiency by reducing the number of experimental runs required for generating competition data for antibodies, and b) improvements to competition data fidelity as compared to conventional epitope binning. The Applicant further states on page 11 that the hidden variables and optimized logit values of amended claim 1 achieve several improvements to technology, namely improvement(s) to device resource efficiency and improvement(s) to the fidelity of competition data, and further states that indeed, amended claim 1 recites a new technique for modeling antibody competition data and further applies this new technique to predict antibody competition data between two antibodies, and further states that at least in view of the new model and its downstream improvements to technology, the recitations of amended claim 1 cannot be dismissed as a mere abstract idea, and instead, at least in view of these improvements to technology, the recitations of amended claim 1 are not directed to an abstract idea.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, regarding the Applicant’s attempt at analogizing the instant claims to Enfish, the instant claims are not analogous to the claims in Enfish, because the instant claims broadly recite generating a machine learning model and using the model to generate a prediction, whereas in contrast, the improvement recited in Enfish is found in a data structure that corresponds to a storage and retrieval structure configured in a computer memory comprising a self-referential table that is designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and thus is an improvement to computer functionality itself. Stated a different way, the improvement was found in the structure of the table itself (e.g., relationships between rows and columns) as arranged (i.e., configured) in a physical memory device, irrespective of any particular data being stored or searched. Second, regarding the Applicant’s attempt at analogizing the instant claims to Bascom, it is noted that the fact pattern differs between the instant claims and the claims in Bascom, not least in that the claims in Bascom recited limitations that were conventional additional elements, but that were found to provide an inventive concept in their non-conventional and non-generic arrangement. In contrast to the fact pattern of Bascom, the fact pattern of the instant claims provide the additional elements of a processor (claim 1); a system comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions (claim 12); a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon (claim 20); and receiving/receive data (claims 1, 12, and 20); which as noted in the above rejection, are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes), and even when evaluated as an ordered combination, these additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception.
The Applicant states on page 11 of the Remarks that amended claim 1 recites a practical application of any alleged abstract ideas, and further states that amended claim 1 recites a new modeling technique that achieves improvement(s) to device resource efficiency and improvement(s) to the fidelity of competition data, and that in fact, amended claim 1 is similar to the claims found to be patent eligible in Example 47 of the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The Applicant further states that Example 47 illustrates a claims that recites the judicial exception of mental processes and mathematical concepts, but integrates the claim into a practical application and thus is patent eligible. The Applicant further states that in Example 47, claim 3 recites training an artificial neural network, detecting anomalies using the artificial neural network, detecting a source address associated with malicious network packets, dropping the malicious network packets, and blocking future traffic from the source address. The Applicant further states that Example 47 explains that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception because it takes proactive measures to remediate the danger by acting in real-time to proactively prevent network intrusions. The Applicant further states that, on the other hand, claim 2 of Example 47, which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a [practical application], also recites training an artificial neural network and detecting anomalies using the artificial neural network, however, rather than dropping malicious network packets and blocking future traffic, claim 2 merely outputs the anomaly data from the trained neural network. The Applicant further states on page 12 that similar to claim 3 of Example 47, amended claim 1 implements a downstream application of modeling technology that achieves multiple improvements, and as explained above, the hidden variables and optimized logit values of amended claim 1 achieve a) improvements to resource efficiency by reducing the number of experimental runs required for generating competition data for antibodies, and b) improvements to competition data fidelity as compared to conventional epitope binning. The Applicant further states that amended claim 1 recites “generating, using the model, a pairwise competition score prediction for two antibodies that predicts competition among the two antibodies when binding to the antigen using the affinity scores for the hidden variables optimized for the two antibodies,” and that the score prediction recited in amended claim 1 that utilizes the model to generate pairwise competition data for two antibodies achieves these downstream improvements to technology, in other words, the recitations of amended claim 1 do not merely generate a new model but go on to generate a prediction via the new model, thus ensuring that the claim encompasses the new model’s improvements to technology, and thus, any alleged abstract idea(s) recited in amended claim 1 are integrated in a manner that achieves a practical application.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, claim 1 in the instant application is not analogous to claim 3 of Example 47 (referenced above), not least because claim 3 of Example 47 is directed to a system for the detection of malicious network packets that enhances security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions, whereas the instant claim 1 is broadly directed to generating a machine learning model and using the model to generate a prediction. Second, the analysis of the hypothetical Example 47 claim 3 resulted in the eligibility determination of the claim as a whole integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the additional elements at each of steps (d), (e), and (f), when considered in combination, provide the integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application by using the information from the detection (i.e., the abstract ideas) to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). Third, the eligibility analysis of instant claim 1, as noted in the rejection above as well as the foregoing responses to arguments, does not result in the integration of the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, because the claim does not recite any additional elements that apply, rely on, and/or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions. Fourth, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion in the foregoing argument, instant claim 1 is more analogous to claim 2 of Example 47, since both claims end with data having been generated by a mathematical model. Fifth, the Eligibility Examples are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted in each Example, and therefore, the Examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in a particular Example, as other fact patterns (e.g., the instant claims) may have different eligibility outcomes.
The Applicant states on page 12 of the Remarks that amended claim 1 is not directed to a mental process, and that as explained above, amended claim 1 improves the technology for generating antibody competition data, namely improvement(s) to device resource efficiency and improvement(s) to the fidelity of competition data, and that this is not an abstract idea that is similar to the ones identified by Alice or its successor cases, such as the examples disclosed at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), and in fact, the recitations of claim 1 provide a technological solution to a technical problem. The Applicant further states on page 13 that moreover, the functionality of amended claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and the recitations of amended claim 1 are similar to the examples that cannot be practically performed in the human mind disclosed at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), and further states that each of these examples relates to functionality that is innately tied to computers and thus would not be practically performed in the human mind. The Applicant further states that similarly, the recitations of amended claim 1 are also innately tied to computers, and further states on page 14 that this sophisticated level of data processing, as a practical matter, cannot be performed entirely within the human mind, and accordingly, the recitations of amended claim 1 are not directed to a mental process.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Second, regarding the Applicant’s argument that “the recitations of amended claim 1 are also innately tied to computers,” the amount of data and/or the amount of time to perform the process steps, in and of themselves is not a limitation which takes a process out of the realm of the human mind. It is the process performed on that data which is the mental step, and mental steps identified in the claims do not have to be the fastest, most efficient, or require specialized computing elements. Thus, although the amount of data may be considered to be significantly large and take considerable time and effort to process manually, the use of a computer to perform the claimed method at a rate and accuracy that can far outstrip the mental performance of a skilled artisan does not change the nature of the activity being performed (i.e., an abstract idea), and therefore does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.
The Applicant states on page 14 of the Remarks that amended claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical concept, and further states that as explained above, amended claim 1 improves the technology for generating antibody competition data, namely improvement(s) to device resource efficiency and improvement(s) to the fidelity of competition data, and that this is not an abstract idea that is similar to the ones identified by Alice or its successor cases, such as the examples disclosed at MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(I), and in fact, the recitations of claim 1 provide a technological solution to a technical problem, and for at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1, and amended independent claims 12 and 20, which recite similar limitations, are not directed to mathematical concepts.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, at Eligibility Step 2A Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Furthermore, a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula, and still further, there is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical concept, that is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Second, the eligibility analysis conducted in the above rejection has determined that claim 1 does not provide a technological solution to a technical problem, not least because when all limitations in claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application) using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I at 2106.04(d) of the MPEP, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h), they are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The Applicant states on page 14 of the Remarks that amended claim 1 recites an ordered combination of additional elements that is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and further states that as discussed above and in the Applicant’s specification, the ordered combination of elements recited in amended claim 1 provides a technological solution to a technological problem. The Applicant further states that at least due to the specific improvements to the technology for generating antibody competition data, amended independent claim 1, and amended claims 12 and 20, which recite similar limitations, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and further states on page 15 that amended claims 1, 12, and 20, together with the remaining claims respectively dependent thereon including additional elements, define particular methods, systems, or media that satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, a conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, which comprises steps of: (1) carrying over the identification of any additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) carrying over the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h); (3) re-evaluating any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) evaluating whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). As noted in the rejection above, when all additional elements in claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19-23 have been evaluated individually and in an ordered combination at Eligibility Step 2B, they are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(II)). Second, the instant claimed improvement to the technology for generating antibody competition data is a purported improvement to the abstract idea (data analysis), and not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jojic et al. in view of Brooks et al. in the Office action mailed 17 February 2026 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received 14 May 2026.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 14 May 2026 have been fully considered, and are persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 17 of the Remarks that the Jojic reference fails to disclose or suggest the recitations of amended claim 1, and further states on page 18 that the Jojic reference fails to disclose or suggest the specificity of the recited model within the context of amended claim 1. The Applicant further states on page 18 that the skilled person starting from Jojic would not have arrived at the recitations of amended claim 1 because Jojic concerns fundamentally different biological tools and there are no prompts for the skilled person to link the teaching of Jojic to the problems of antibody competition, and further states on page 19 that accordingly, it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art that the modeling approach adopted by Jojic would be relevant to modeling antibody competition as claimed, further states that the Brooks reference does not remedy these deficiencies of Jojic. The Applicant further states on page 21 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Jojic and Brooks in the manner purported in the Office action.
These arguments are persuasive, at least because Jojic and Brooks do not show or suggest deriving the hidden variables and affinity scores for the hidden variables by optimizing logit values for the hidden variables using pairwise competition data values from the training data, wherein the hidden variables represent competition factors for the antigen that cause competition among the antibodies, and the logit values represent the antibodies’ affinity scores for the hidden variables.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The closest art of record is Jojic et al. (as cited in the Office action mailed 17 February 2026) and Brooks et al. (as cited in the Office action mailed 17 February 2026). While the art of record suggests that it would have been obvious to train a machine learning model using pairwise data of antibody/antigen interactions to discover binding patterns, neither Jojic et al. nor Brooks et al. show or suggest generating pairwise competition prediction scores between antibodies by using logit values for the antibodies.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/S.W.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights