DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 08/30/2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 .
Election Response
The Election filed 08/30/2022, in response to the Office Action of 07/24/2025, is acknowledged and has been entered. Applicants elected without traverse Group I (claims 1-14). Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner under 35 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 1-14 are currently under prosecution.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0018]: “(i.e weight)” should read “(i.e., weight)” instead.
Paragraphs [0019-0020]: the end of paragraph 19 is an incomplete sentence which finishes at the start of paragraph 20.
Examiner suggests amending to bring up paragraph 20 into paragraph 19 to finish the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “substance-is” in line 2 of the claim. Examiner suggests removing the dash in between the two words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Regarding claims 8-14, the originally filed Specification does not disclose “a computer means,” “a first graphical means,” or “a second graphical means.” The specification instead discloses (¶5 “a computer-based tool” ¶6 a “a computer which is programmed”). The specification does not disclose anything regarding “a first” or “a second” graphical means.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these 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/them 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/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 8-14 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “a computer means,” “a first graphical means,” and “a second graphical means.” The Specification does not provide sufficient structure to avoid infringement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a computer means,” “a first graphical means” and “a second graphical means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The originally filed Specification does not recite structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and perform related chemical processes” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear what is considered “related” to chemical processes for the programed computer to compute/solve. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to measure the metes and bounds for “related chemical processes” as to avoid infringement. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined according to the best reasonable interpretation of the claimed language. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the related processes” in line 7 of the claim. It is unclear if this is the same processes as in claim 4 or if it is a different process that is being computed. This limitation lacks antecedent basis rendering the claim as indefinite. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plurality of substances” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear if this is different from the substances in claim 1 (recited in line 10) that is to be selected by the user.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the solution includes a plurality of non-graphical values from the output data” in lines 1-2 of the claim. It is unclear if this solution is different from the one the user is going to receive that is recited in lines 14-5 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “electronically connected” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear how the “first graphical means” can be electronically connected to the computer. The Specification is silent regarding a first graphical means and the other graphical means being “electronically connected” to the computer. The specification recites the following:
“[0008] The system of the present invention also includes a calculator which is electronically connected with the computer”
The specification states that its also a calculator and nothing about if this is a first graphical means. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined to mean that the “first graphical means” is a program/GUI that is installed and running on a computer. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the related processes” in lines 7-8 of the claim. It is unclear what is considered “related” to the processes for chemistry problems for the programed computer to compute/solve. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to measure the metes and bounds for “related processes” as to avoid infringement. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined according to the best reasonable interpretation of the claimed language. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “individually and collectively indicative of the computer calculations” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear how the output data could be “indicative of the computer calculations.” The Speciation does not further explain what that means. Examiner suggests amending the claim to further clarify the limitation. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined according to the best reasonable interpretation of the claimed language. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “electronically connected” in line 11 of the claim. It is unclear how the “second graphical means” can be electronically connected to the computer. The Specification is silent regarding a second graphical means and the other graphical means being “electronically connected” to the computer. The specification recites the following:
“[0008] The system of the present invention also includes a calculator which is electronically connected with the computer”
The specification states that it’s also a calculator and nothing about if this is a second graphical means. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be examined to mean that the “second graphical means” is a program/GUI that is installed and running on a computer. Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a visual display” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if this visual display is different from the one recited in claim 8 in line 12 of the claim. Claims 10-13 depend from claim 9 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a user can solve” in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if the user or the “computer means” recited in claim 8 in line 3 is solving the chemistry equations. Examiner suggests amending the claim to further clarify how the solution is being populated. Claim 11-13 depend from claim 10 and are therefore rejected to on the same grounds.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a minor process involving a single process and a major process involving a plurality of processes” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear what “minor,” “single,” “major,” processes are and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what the metes and bounds are as to avoid infringement. The specification recites:
“[0007] …Accordingly, to further simplify calculations, the present invention differentiates processes as being either a minor process or a major process. In detail, a minor process will involve calculations for a single substance and will typically result in establishing a molarity or molality for the substance. On the other hand, a major process will involve a plurality of substances and require balancing equations, evaluating combustion, and producing a synthesis with the plurality of substances.”
Is the process recited the math required to solve the equations or is it in regards to the process of pulling the information from the pre-determined list of equations and solutions. Examiner suggests amending to further clarify the limitations within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “A Graphical User Interface (GUI)” (i.e., a process (the process of running the GUI on the computer));
Claim 8 is directed to “A system” (i.e. a machine);
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “to give a solution for the chemistry problems” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Independent Claim 1: A Graphical User Interface (GUI) for performing computations of chemistry problems and performing related processes which comprises:
a computer programmed to solve predetermined non-graphical chemistry problems and perform related chemical processes;
a calculator interfacing with the computer to provide input data and instructions to the computer for solving the chemistry problems and for performing the related processes, wherein the calculator includes a graphical chart for visually prompting a user to provide the input data and instructions;
a first interface section of the graphical chart for receiving the input data and instructions, and for selecting at least one substance; and
a second interface section of the graphical chart for displaying output values calculated by the computer during implementation of the selected process, to give a solution for the chemistry problems and processes in an organized graphical presentation of the output data.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a computer” is claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “to give a solution for the chemistry problems” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. ”a computer” is claimed and this is a generic, well-known, and conventional computing element. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “computer,” is described in ¶ [0006], as follows:
“[0006] A system for the present invention includes a computer which is programmed to balance and solve predetermined chemical equations involving substances of chemical compounds.”
This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a computer,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is: No.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claims 1, and 8.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
Claims 1-14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to claims 1-14, the claims recite a plurality of mathematical concepts.
The Applicant’s “Graphical User Interface for performing computations of chemistry problems” and “A system for performing computations of chemistry problems” could be reasonably be practiced as abstract ideas in the form of “Mathematical concepts” such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations. The Specification recited on 08/30/2022 recites the following:
“[0007] As appreciated by the present invention, calculations for chemical equations will differ significantly depending on the chemical process(es) that is(are) involved. Accordingly, to further simplify calculations, the present invention differentiates processes as being either a minor process or a major process. In detail, a minor process will involve calculations for a single substance and will typically result in establishing a molarity or molality for the substance. On the other hand, a major process will involve a plurality of substances and require balancing equations, evaluating combustion, and producing a synthesis with the plurality of substances.”
The claims are directed to performing computations of chemistry problems.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Another relevant example would be: “Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
SOFTWARE PER SE
Claims 1-14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regards to claims 1-14, the claims recite a plurality of software program features.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “a computer programmed to solve” and claim 8 recites “a computer means programmed with equations for solving.” Each of these elements are reasonably interpreted to be drawn to a computer program or software per se and are deemed to be non-statutory subject matter. The Specification filed on 08/30/2022 recites the following:
“[0006] A system for the present invention includes a computer which is programmed to balance and solve predetermined chemical equations…”
The claims are directed to the Graphical User Interface (GUI) which is a software program that is running on the computer to solve the predetermined chemistry problems.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are dependent on either claim 1 or claim 8 and recite similar limitations further defining the functions performed by the model and the presentation mechanism of claim 1 or claim 8. As such, claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also interpreted and deemed to be non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 for failing to recite statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symbolab (online Chemistry Calculator (https://web.archive.org/web/20160715190109/https://www.symbolab.com/solver/chemistry-calculator; hereinafter Symbolab) in view of CalculatorSoup (online Chemistry Calculator (https://web.archive.org/web/20110711204205/http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/chemistry/periodictable.php; hereinafter CalculatorSoup) in further view of Bertrand O. Ramsay (US 5265029 A; hereinafter Ramsay).
Regarding claim 1, Symbolab discloses a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for performing computations of chemistry problems and performing related processes which comprises: a computer programmed to solve non-graphical chemistry problems and perform related chemical processes (Symbolab is an online website that allows users to calculate chemistry problems (see at least: Chemistry Calculator – Symbolab NPL attached)); a calculator interfacing with the computer to provide input data and instructions to the computer for solving the chemistry problems and for performing the related processes, wherein the calculator includes a graphical chart for visually prompting a user to provide the input data and instructions; a first interface section of the graphical chart for receiving the input data and instructions, and for selecting at least one substance; and a second interface section of the graphical chart for displaying output values calculated by the computer during implementation of the selected process, to give a solution for the chemistry problems and processes in an organized graphical presentation of the output data (Symbolab is an online website that has a fist interface section that allows users to input the chemistry problem that they want the calculator to compute and then provides a second interface section that gives the user with the answer to the problem that they inputted)
PNG
media_image1.png
873
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Symbolab doesn’t explicitly say that any of the chemistry problems are predetermined since the users have the full ability to pick whichever problem they want the answer to. CalculatorSoup and Ramsay teach that there is predetermined information given to users as they use the chemistry calculators of each prior art.
CalculatorSoup shows that each element on the periodic table of elements has predetermined information as shown in the figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
1031
1902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ramsay teaches that there are database managers to contain the information needed to run the chemistry calculator (It contains the rules defining the Chemical Functions to be provided by the calculator, and calls for the Lexical Analyzer to retrieve the user input, i.e., chemical element symbols, mathematical symbols, etc. When it needs a datum about a specific chemical element it calls the Database Manager. Once it has determined the result of a Chemical Function it calls the screen driver to display the data. FIG. 6 illustrates the parsing operation (see at least: Ramsay [column 10, lines 53-61]; FIGs 5-6)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have properly programed a calculator with equations that are accurate and will give users answers that teach them the answer to their question as taught by Symbolab, CalculatorSoup and Ramsay.
Regarding claim 2, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and CalculatorSoup further teaches wherein the at least one substance-is selected from the group consisting of an element (see at least: Chemistry Calculator – CalculatorSoup NPL attached and FIG above).
Regarding claim 3, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and CalculatorSoup further teaches wherein an equation is selected from the group consisting of a complete molecular equation (see FIG below).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
1908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and CalculatorSoup further teaches wherein a plurality of substances is selected by the user (as shown in the FIG above a user can select any of the substances to learn more about them).
Regarding claim 6, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Ramsay further teaches wherein the solution is selected from the group consisting of molarity calculations (Question #9: What amount of product D is formed from 3.16 g of reactant C in the following chemical reaction? ##EQU5## Answer: 3.32 g (0.0313 moles) of D(77) Description of Process: The first step involves determining the number of moles of reactant C: ##EQU6## The formula weight of C must be determined as before. The second step involves setting up a ratio of moles C used to moles D produced according to the chemical equation: ##EQU7## (see at least: Ramsay [column 6, lines 1-20)). Ramsay teaches how they are solved with the equations shown in the patent.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup and Ramsay in further view of Symbolab- Symbolab Blog (https://web.archive.org/web/20220314140535/https://blog.symbolab.com/2015/02/my-notebook-symbolab-way.html; hereinafter Symbolab Blog).
Regarding claim 5, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab further teaches through another link a record keeping unit in the computer for subsequent access to prior solutions by the user (see at least: NPL attached Symbolab Blog). Users are allowed to “Sign in” and create accounts where they can keep records and save solutions with notes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allowed students to save the lessons they are completing so that they can look back to them for review before exams or quizzes. Symbolab taught that and Symbolab Blog NPL was made of record in to show how the save feature worked on the Symbolab website.
PNG
media_image4.png
585
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Symbolab in view of CalculatorSoup in further view of Ramsay teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab further teaches through Symbolab Blog wherein the solution includes a plurality of non-graphical values from the output data. As shown in the FIG above, Symbolab shows a plurality of non-graphical values from the output data of the question asked to Symbolab.
Claims 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog.
Regarding claim 8, A system for performing computations of chemistry problems and related processes which comprises: a computer means programmed with equations for solving non-graphical chemistry problems and performing related processes to calculate output data (Symbolab is an online website that allows users to calculate chemistry problems (see at least: Chemistry Calculator – Symbolab NPL attached)); a first graphical means electronically connected with the computer means for organizing and receiving non-graphical input data and instructions for the computer which are needed to solve the chemistry problems and perform the related processes, wherein the computer calculations generate non-graphical values for the output data which are individually and collectively indicative of the computer calculations (Symbolab is an online website that has a fist interface section that allows users to input the chemistry problem that they want the calculator to compute and then provides a second interface section that gives the user with the answer to the problem that they inputted); However, Symbolab in the attached NPL does not show and a second graphical means electronically connected with the computer means for visually displaying relationships between a plurality of non-graphical values from the output data in an organized graphical presentation thereof to give a solution for the chemistry problems and processes. Symbolab Blog teaches that Symbolab has a second graphical means electronically connected with the computer means for visually displaying relationships between a plurality of non-graphical values from the output data in an organized graphical presentation thereof to give a solution for the chemistry problems and processes (as shown in the FIG from the NPL above- Symbolab Blog shows the Symbolab solutions and processes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a calculator produce the process and show the process so that students can learn the steps on how to get the answer.
Regarding claim 9, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab blog further teaches wherein the non-graphical input data includes value units and quantities with which the computer calculates the non-graphical output data for a visual display indicative of the computer calculations (a close up of the FIG above is provided below) Symbolab shows the steps and output data that has a visual display indicative of the computer calculations.
PNG
media_image5.png
377
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab further teaches wherein the first graphical means and the second graphical means, in combination with each other, create a graphical chart interface by which a user can solve selected chemistry problems and perform related processes (see at least: attached NPL showing that users can use the website to perform chemistry problems).
Regarding claim 11, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab further teaches wherein the first graphical means is used to prompt the user to provide the non-graphical input data and instructions (see at least: attached NPL showing that users can enter a problem they want solved into Symbolab).
Regarding claim 13, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above and Symbolab further teaches wherein the process is selected from the group consisting of a minor process involving a single process and a major process involving a plurality of processes. The equations that are being calculated are processes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have programmed a calculator that works when a user inputs an equation that needs to be solved (or a process), an output is generated.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog in further view of CalculatorSoup.
Regarding claim 12, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above, however they do not explicitly show wherein the user is prompted to identify and select at least one substance for the input data, and wherein the substance is selected from the group consisting of an element, a compound, an ion, a diatomic and a mixture, and further wherein value units for the substances are selected from the group consisting of temperature, pressure, and heat. Calculator soup teaches that the user is able to select an element and it further shows melting point, boiling point, and density. (see at least: attached NPL: Chemistry Calculator- CalculatorSoup).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included chemical properties/information used in calculating or solving chemical equations in the calculator or system as taught by CalculatorSoup so that the calculator is accurate and gives correct information to the user.
Regarding claim 14, Symbolab in view of Symbolab Blog teaches the claimed matter as stated above, however they do not explicitly show wherein an equation is selected from the group consisting of a complete molecular equation CalculatorSoup shows that there are molecular balancing options within the calculator for the user to select (see at least: attached NPL: Chemistry Calculator- CalculatorSoup).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715