DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application is a CON of PCT/JP2020/026214 filed on 7/3/2020. At this point in examination, the effective filing date of claims 1-18 is 7/3/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2022 and 10/12/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings, submitted 11/30/2022, require correction because several nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences do not meet the proper disclosure requirements, as detailed below.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed On Or After July 1, 2022, That Have Sequence Disclosures
37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted:
1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying:
a. the name of the XML file
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or
2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
a. the name of the XML file;
b. the date of creation; and
c. the size of the XML file in bytes.
SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.834 because it does not contain a “Sequence Listing XML” as a separate part of the disclosure. A “Sequence Listing XML” is required because sequence disclosures are located in Figure 7 in the drawings filed 11/30/2022.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
• A “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1. or 2.; together with
o A statement that indicates the basis for the amendment, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(3);
o A statement that the “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(4)
AND
• A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation by reference paragraph as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2), consisting of:
o A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
o A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
o A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Sequence disclosures are located in Figure 7 in the drawings filed 11/30/2022.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 7, and 13 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.
The term “inverted index” in claim 1, line 11, claim 7, line 10, and claim 13, line 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inverted index” is 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 apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what relationships the generated "inverted index" defines. para. [0063], lines 4-7, para. [0066], lines 1-4, and para. [0069], lines 1-4 in the instant specification describes .
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 1-18 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: Claims 1-6 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Claims 7-12 are directed to an information processing method (process). Claims 13-18 are directed to an information processing device (machine). 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 described in the claim.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 18 recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groups of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 further recite:
calculating vectors of a plurality of pieces of space-specific basic information defined in a plurality of spaces by performing Poincare Embeddings on the plurality of pieces of basic information, based on a common concept table that classifies the plurality of pieces of basic information with a common concept and calculate a vector of structural information with a granularity larger than the basic information, based on the vectors of the plurality of pieces of basic information (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts);
generating an inverted index that defines a relationship between a position of the basic information in a file that corresponds to the same space and the vector of the basic information and a relationship between a position of the structural information in the file and the vector of the structural information (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claims 2, 8, and 14 further recite:
wherein the calculating of the vectors includes calculating a vector of each of first basic information specific for a first space defined in the first space, second basic information specific for a second space defined in the second space, and third basic information defined in a third space by performing Poincare Embeddings on the first basic information, the second basic information, and the third basic information, based on a common concept table that classifies the first basic information, the second basic information, and the third basic information with a common concept (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims 3, 9, and 15 further recite:
wherein the generating of the inverted index includes calculating a vector of first structural information with a granularity larger than the first basic information in the first space, based on the vectors of a plurality of pieces of the first basic information and generates a first inverted index in which a position of the first basic information in a file of the first space, a position of the vector of the first structural information, and the vector are associated (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 further recite:
wherein the generating of the inverted index includes correcting the vectors of a plurality of pieces of similar first structural information, based on the vectors of the plurality of pieces of similar first structural information (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 further recite:
calculating a vector of a receptor, a vector of a ligand, and a vector of an antagonist that belong to the first structural information, regarding teacher data that uses the receptor as input data and one of the ligand or the antagonist as a correct answer label and generate a learning model, based on the vector of the receptor, the vector of the ligand, and the vector of the antagonist (i.e., mental processes, 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 pencil and paper, 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 are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 18 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the additional non-abstract element (EIA) of a general-purpose computer system or parts thereof:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 1);
an information processing device comprising a memory and a processor (claim 13).
The EIA do not provide any details of how specific structures of the computer elements are used to implement the JE. The claims require nothing more than a general-purpose computer to perform the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. The computer elements of the claims do not provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself (as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com LP); they do not provide improvements to any other technology or technical field (as in Diamond v. Diehr); nor do they utilize a particular machine (as in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.). Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the JE using a computer, and therefore the claim does not recite integrate that JE into a practical application.
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-18 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 13 contain additional elements that would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and are further probed for inventive concept in Step 2B.
[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.
With respect to claims 1 and 13: The limitations identified above as non-abstract elements (EIA) related to general-purpose computer systems do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field (Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, TLI Communications). They do not require or set forth a particular machine (Ultramercial v. Hulu, LLC., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank Int’l), they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide an unconventional step. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception are insufficient to provide significantly more (as discussed in Alice Corp., CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Parker v. Flook, Versata Development Group v. SAP America).
[Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, claims 1-18 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
It is noted that claims 1-18 are free from the prior art as the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest generating an inverted index that defines a relationship between a position of the basic information in a file that corresponds to the same space and the vector of the basic information and a relationship between a position of the structural information in the file and the vector of the structural information in claims 1, 7, and 13 for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, information processing method, and information processing device. The closest prior art is Yu et al. (arXiV.org, 2020, 1-19), as provided in the IDS filed 10/12/2023. Yu et al. discloses performing hyperbolic drug embeddings in a two dimensional Poincaré disk based on a drug hierarchy, the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC), which groups drugs according to the anatomical organ on which they act on (level 1), therapeutic intent (level 2), and pharmacological properties (level 3) (pg. 6, para. 5; pg. 9, para. 2; Figure 3). Poincaré embeddings are performed on a plurality of drugs based on the ATC that groups the drugs with a common category within each level, and vectors of structural information with a granularity larger than the basic information are calculated in the higher levels such as level 3. However, Yu et al. is silent to the particular methods of generating an inverted index that defines a relationship between a position of the basic information in a file and the vector of the basic information and a relationship between a position of the structural information in the file and the vector of the structural information as required by the instant claims. Furthermore, there are limited references that utilize both Poincaré embeddings and inverted indices together, where the inverted index involves information of two levels of granularity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jammy Luo whose telephone number is (571)272-2358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights