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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. A response on 10/29/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-10. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given on action dated 08/29/2025, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1-10, the term “if” is vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “if” not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. The examiner unsure anything come after “if” is part of the claim.
In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
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 1-10 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, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method for determining bonds in particle trajectories, comprising the steps of: obtaining a data set of particle trajectories in a material system; dynamically identifying bonds between particles in the material system, wherein dynamically identifying bonds comprises: selecting a candidate bond comprising a pair of particles determining the candidate bond as bound if which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of i. the pair of particles are closer than a predetermined maximum distance based on a combination of particle radii of the pair of particles over a first predetermined time period; ii. during a second predetermined time period, an average distance between the pair of particles is within a tolerance associated with at least one of: a peak of a partial radial distribution function, or a measure of equilibrium bond length, or nearest neighbor distance of the pair of particles; and iii. a first particle of the candidate bond is not present within an exclusion body associated with a second particle in the candidate bond and any other particle, or fulfils a bond-length criterion if being present within said exclusion body over a third predetermined time period are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? There is no more additional element. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
As regarding to depend claims:
Claim 2, wherein the bond- length criterion is fulfilled if a first length in-between the particles in the candidate bond is less than a predetermined factor multiplied with a second length, wherein the second length is defined by the length in-between the pair of particles associated with the exclusion body.
Claim 3, determining a bond lifetime if the candidate bond is bound.
Claim 4, determining at least one bond graph based on the identified bonds in the material system.
Claim 5, characterizing particle types or local or global structures based on a partitioning of at least one bond graph; and predicting the physicochemical properties of the material system based on the particle types or local or global structures.
Claim 6, wherein a bond graph is partitioned according to a first representation model or a second representation model, wherein the first representation model comprises partitioning a bond graph into connected components, and the second representation model comprises partitioning a bond graph into graph neighbourhoods neighborhoods defined by the vertices up to a maximum graph distance from at least one of a central particle or motif and the edges between them.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9, a computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more control circuitry of an electronic device, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the method of claim 1.
Claim 10, one or more control circuitry; and memory devices storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more control circuitry, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the method of claim 1.
The above dependent claims recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claims 2-10 not eligible as well.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a ", a computer-readable storage medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that applicant amends the claims as follows: "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer instructions stored therein for causing a computer processor to perform".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Koen E. Merkus, Single-Bond Association Kinetics Determined by Tethered Particle Motion: Concept and Simulations, page 1612-1620, Biophysical Journal 111, 1612–1620, October 18, 2016.
Regarding claim 1:
Koen E. Merkus described a method for determining bonds in particle
Trajectories (page 1613, the measurement of their trajectories (particle) can be done robustly in wide-field optics), comprising the steps of:
obtaining a data set of particle trajectories in a material system (page 1613, tethered particles with secondary bonds); dynamically identifying bonds between particles in the material system, wherein dynamically identifying bonds (page 1614, Langevin dynamics simulations using the LAMMPS MD package) comprises:
selecting a candidate bond comprising a pair of particles determining the candidate bond as bound if:
the pair of particles are closer than a predetermined maximum distance based on a combination of particle radii of the pair of particles over a first predetermined time period (page 1618, (20–150 nm radii) 300 closer to 150nm);
during a second predetermined time period, an average distance between the pair of particles is within a tolerance associated with at least one of: a peak of a partial radial distribution function (page 1618, (20–150 nm radii, fig. 4a, average step @ 150nm peak), or a measure of equilibrium bond length, or nearest neighbor distance of the pair of particles; and
a first particle of the candidate bond is not present within an exclusion body associated with a second particle in the candidate bond and any other particle (page 1614, M is the particle’s mass and r is the particle’s acceleration. Excluded volume, bonding, and angle-bend interactions are explicitly included in Fc), or fulfils a bond-length criterion if being present within said exclusion body over a third predetermined time period.
Regarding claim 2, Koen E. Merkus further described wherein the bond- length criterion is fulfilled if a first length in-between the particles in the candidate bond is less than a predetermined factor multiplied with a second length (page 1615, 1nm less than other), wherein the second length is defined by the length in-between the pair of particles associated with the exclusion body (page 1615, 1nm as reference).
Regarding claim 3, Koen E. Merkus further described determining a bond lifetime if the candidate bond is bound (page 1619, nonspecific bonds can be monitored by a statistical analysis of lifetimes).
Regarding claim 4, Koen E. Merkus further described determining at least one bond graph based on the identified bonds in the material system (fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Koen E. Merkus further described characterizing particle types or local or global structures based on a partitioning of at least one bond graph (page 1616, dynamic analysis) ; and predicting the physicochemical properties of the material system based on the particle types (page 1616, bonding event, fit CDF, associate rate K) or local or global structures.
Regarding claim 6, Koen E. Merkus further described partitioning a bond graph into connected components, and the second representation model comprises partitioning a bond graph into graph neighborhoods defined by the vertices up to a maximum graph distance from at least one of a central particle or motif and the edges between them (fig. 1, TPM with a secondary bond).
Regarding claim 9, Koen E. Merkus further described circuitry on electronic device (page 1615, computer computationally acceptable. To model a particle with radius 500 nm, we have chosen= 499 nm)
Regarding claim 10, Koen E. Merkus further described one or more control circuitry; and memory devices storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more control circuitry, the one or more programs including instructions for performing (page 1615, computer computationally acceptable. To model a particle with radius 500 nm, we have chosen= 499 nm).
Contact information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
November 17, 2025