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
Original claims 1-20 filed 7/25/2022 are pending
Priority
This application filed 7/25/2022 makes no claim for priority
Information Disclosure Statement
The five information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 7/27/2022 through 10/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,032612 (application 17/872696). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each provide an architecture for the us of BoC deployment to manage data, in the form of a metagraph. The present claims more specifically state that the control data is assessed for possible fault, however this is found to be an obvious instruction and type of information being monitored. A copy of the pending claims are provided below for completeness of the record.
Instant claim 1:
A method for managing operation of a biosystem on a chip (BoC) deployment, the method comprising:
obtaining an architecture of a BoC of the BoC deployment;
predicting a fault for a future operation of the BoC based on the architecture;
obtaining a risk rating for a portion of control data usable to manage the predicted fault, the risk rating being based on a level of delay for hosting the portion of the control data remotely to the BoC deployment;
making a determination regarding whether the risk rating exceeds a threshold; in a first instance of the determination where the risk rating exceeds the threshold: deploying a copy of the control data to local computing resources of the BoC deployment to obtain a deployed portion of the control data, and
operating the BoC deployment using the deployed copy of the control data to manage any instances of the predicted fault that occur during the operation; and
in a second instance of the determination where the risk rating does not exceed the threshold:
operating the BoC deployment using the control data to manage the any instances of the predicted fault that occur during the operation, the control data being hosted by computing resources that are remote to the BoC deployment.
Independent claim 1 of ‘612:
A method for managing operation data for biosystems on a chip (BoC),the method comprising:
obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC; generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoCs, each of the graph representations being based on a structure of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs;
identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form; and
providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoCs to service the information request.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/872990 (docketed no action taken). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each are directed to methods of using a BoC and metagraph representation for an architecture. The claims of ’990 do not specifically state to monitor for fault, but provide for various process plans based on causal mechanisms, and to generate desired outcome and appear to encompass sensor data for a variety of characteristics including those indicative of failure.
Pending claim 1 of ‘990 is provided for comparison:
A method for managing operation of a biosystem on a chip (BoC) deployment, the method comprising:
obtaining: input operation data for a previously performed operation with the BoC deployment, and a graph representation based on an architecture of a BoC of the BoC deployment; obtaining an approximation function based on the input operation data; obtaining a causal graph based on the graph representation, the causal graph comprising a first portion of nodes associated with the approximation function, a second portion of nodes corresponding to nodes of the graph representation, and edges between the second portion of the nodes representing causal mechanisms for components of the architecture of the BoC; identifying the causal mechanisms for the components of the architecture of the BoC using the approximation function and operation data from the previously performed operation with the BoC deployment, the operation data comprising sensor data indicating characteristics of the components of the architecture of the BoC during the previously performed operation; obtaining a new process plan for the BoC using the identified causal mechanisms, the new process plan being different from a previous process plan used during the previously performed operation; and performing a new operation with the BoC deployment based on the new process plan to generate a desired output material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neil et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0244950) and Venema et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0365457).
Regarding claim 1, Neil teaches:
obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC (Neil – an entity may comprise any portion of information or a fact that has a relationship with another portion of information or another fact. The entities of a particular query or query input (i.e. information request) may include the subject entity, a relation entity and an object entity. These entities may be affiliated with a particular domain or knowledge base [0049]. In Fig. 1a, step 102, the query (i.e. information request) to the graph structure is received, the query comprises a data representation (i.e. similarity form) of at least one query node (i.e. target BoC) [0052].)
generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs (Neil – the graph structure may be a knowledge graph (i.e. metagraph) that includes a plurality of nodes (i.e. plurality of BoC) representing at least a group of entities. Each of the plurality of nodes are connected via relationship edges to one or more other node(s) of the plurality of nodes, each relationship edge between two node(s) representing a relationship [0053].)
identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form (Neil – in step 104, one or more target nodes (i.e. BoCs) in response to the query (i.e. similarity form) are identified based on a policy network, where the policy network is configured to determine the one or more target nodes in accordance with a latent policy distribution associated with policy network.
With respect to predicting fault, the policy network may be further trained to navigate the knowledge graph from query entities [0055]. In step 108, the graph structure is traversed by a search in relation to the policy network, wherein the search is configured to navigate from the query node to one or more identified target nodes to determine the associated path [0057], where each of the plurality of nodes are connected via relationship edges to one or more other node(s) of the plurality of nodes, each relationship edge between two node(s) representing a relationship [0053].)
and providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request (Neil – in step 110a, a list of the one or more target nodes and the associated paths is outputted for the query [0058].)
Further, Neil teaches:
wherein the structure of the corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs comprises a chamber and a channel through which an input material traverses to generate an output material during operation of the one of the plurality of BoCs (Neil – in the biological, chemoinformatics or bioinformatics spaces, graph structure, or more specifically knowledge graph, may be formed from a plurality of entities in which each entity may represented a biological entity from the group of biological processes. Each of the plurality of entities may have relationship with another one or more entities [0050], and wherein the portion of the operation data comprises a fluid flow characteristic of the input material as it traverses the one of the plurality of BoCs (Neil – in the biological, chemoinformatics or bioinformatics spaces, graph structure, or more specifically knowledge graph, may be formed from a plurality of entities in which each entity may represented a biological entity from the group of biological processes. Each of the plurality of entities may have relationship with another one or more entities [0050].)
Neil does not specifically appear to teach:
reading, from the graph representation, pointers; reading, using the pointers, the portion of the operation data from the database which can be used to assess the data and assess possible fault
However, Venema teaches:
reading, from the graph representation, pointers; reading, using the pointers, the portion of the operation data from the database (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node [0057]. Also see [0062], where the query-processing execution environment initially accesses a node or relationship entity, such as during traversal of a path within the graph database, by dereferencing (i.e. reading) a pointer or other type of reference to the entity.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form, providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request and identifying a graph representation of the graph representations corresponding to the one of the plurality of BoCs with the teachings of Venema of reading, from the graph representation, pointers; reading, using the pointers, the portion of the operation data from the database. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
Further, Venema teaches:
wherein the pointers comprise: a first portion of the pointers that are associated with a node of the identified graph representation; and a second portion of the pointers that is associated with a second node of the identified graph representation (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node. Similarly, entries in the relationship data structure store pointers (i.e. second portion of the pointers) to relationship records, such as relationship record 1244 [0057].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil and Venema of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form, providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request, identifying a graph representation of the graph representations corresponding to the one of the plurality of BoCs reading, from the graph representation, pointers and reading, using the pointers, the portion of the operation data from the database with the teachings of Venema of wherein the pointers comprise: a first portion of the pointers that are associated with a node of the identified graph representation; and a second portion of the pointers that is associated with a second node of the identified graph representation. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
wherein the first portion of the pointers identify first corresponding portions of the database in which a sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the chamber is stored, and the second portion of the pointers identify second corresponding portions of the database in which a second sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the channel is stored
wherein the first portion of the pointers identify first corresponding portions of the database in which a sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the chamber is stored, and the second portion of the pointers identify second corresponding portions of the database in which a second sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the channel is stored (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node. Similarly, entries in the relationship data structure store pointers (i.e. second portion of the pointers) to relationship records, such as relationship record 1244 [0057].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil and Venema of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form, providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request, identifying a graph representation of the graph representations corresponding to the one of the plurality of BoCs reading, from the graph representation, pointers and reading, using the pointers, the portion of the operation data from the database, wherein the pointers comprise: a first portion of the pointers that are associated with a node of the identified graph representation; and a second portion of the pointers that is associated with a second node of the identified graph representation with the teachings of Venema of wherein the first portion of the pointers identify first corresponding portions of the database in which a sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the chamber is stored, and the second portion of the pointers identify second corresponding portions of the database in which a second sub-portion of the portion of the operation data related to the channel is stored. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
wherein the database is unstructured (Neil – the graph structure may be a knowledge graph that includes a plurality of nodes representing at least a group of entities. Each of the plurality of nodes are connected via relationship edges to one or more other node(s) of the plurality of nodes, each relationship edge between two node(s) representing a relationship [0053].)
wherein each of the graph representations is a graph database comprising nodes and edges, the nodes being based on structural portions of a corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs, the edges being based on fluid communication capabilities between the structural portions, (Neil – the graph structure may be a knowledge graph that includes a plurality of nodes representing at least a group of entities. Each of the plurality of nodes are connected via relationship edges to one or more other node(s) of the plurality of nodes, each relationship edge between two node(s) representing a relationship [0053].)
However, Neil does not appear to teach:
and each of the nodes being associated with pointers
But, Venema teaches:
and each of the nodes being associated with pointers (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node [0057].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil and Venema of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form and providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request, wherein each of the graph representations is a graph database comprising nodes and edges, the nodes being based on structural portions of a corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs, the edges being based on fluid communication capabilities between the structural portions with the teachings of Venema of and each of the nodes being associated with pointers. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
It is noted that Neil teaches:
from the corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs (Neil – the graph structure may be a knowledge graph (i.e. metagraph) that includes a plurality of nodes (i.e. plurality of BoC) representing at least a group of entities. Each of the plurality of nodes are connected via relationship edges to one or more other node(s) of the plurality of nodes, each relationship edge between two node(s) representing a relationship [0053].)
But Neil does not appear to teach:
wherein the pointers identify entries of the database in which sensor data [from the corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs] is stored
However, Venema teaches:
wherein the pointers identify entries of the database in which sensor data [from the corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs] is stored (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node [0057].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil and Venema of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form and providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request, wherein each of the graph representations is a graph database comprising nodes and edges, the nodes being based on structural portions of a corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs, the edges being based on fluid communication capabilities between the structural portions, and each of the nodes being associated with pointers with the teachings of Venema of wherein the pointers identify entries of the database in which sensor data [from the corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs] is stored. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
Further, Neil does not appear to teach:
wherein the pointers further identify second entries of the database in which actuator data
However, Venema teaches:
wherein the pointers further identify second entries of the database in which actuator data (Venema – Fig. 12B illustrates a different type of graph-database implementation. Node pointers are stored in data structure 1230 and relationship pointers are stored in data structure 1232. The address of a pointer, such as the address 1234 for the data-structure entry 1236, serves as the identifier for a node. The pointer stored in entry 1236 points to a record 1242 (i.e. operation data) stored in a node-record data structure that contains the contents of the node. Similarly, entries in the relationship data structure store pointers (i.e. second portion of the pointers) to relationship records, such as relationship record 1244 [0057].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Neil and Venema before them, to modify the system of Neil and Venema of obtaining an information request for a similarity form that indicates a structure of a target BoC, generating a metagraph based on the similarity form and a repository of graph representations of a plurality of BoC, each of the graph representations be based on a structures of a corresponding one of the plurality of BoCs, identifying one of the plurality of BoCs based on edges between nodes of the metagraph as being a closest match to the similarity form and providing a portion of operation data from a database for the identified one of the plurality of BoC to service the information request, wherein each of the graph representations is a graph database comprising nodes and edges, the nodes being based on structural portions of a corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs, the edges being based on fluid communication capabilities between the structural portions, and each of the nodes being associated with pointers wherein the pointers identify entries of the database in which sensor data from the corresponding BoC of the plurality of BoCs is stored with the teachings of Venema of wherein the pointers further identify second entries of the database in which actuator data. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve operational efficiencies of, and the range of functionalities provided by, graph databases (Venema - [0004]).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph T Woitach whose telephone number is (571)272-0739. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8:00-4:00.
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 R 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.
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687