DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Regarding U.S Provisional Patent Application No. 63/290,111 (filed 12/16/2021), Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 3-18 should be corrected to comply with the applicable sections of 37 CFR 1.84 set forth below. In particular, such figures should be drawings using India ink or its equivalent.
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.
(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18" and “the stored program” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 20 will be interpreted as depending from claim 19 in order to provide sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Claims 1-13 are directed to a method (a process), Claims 14-18 are directed to an apparatus (a machine), and Claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (an article of manufacture), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories of inventions.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “machine learning model”).
extracting a plurality of features from each of the obtained spectra (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review obtained spectra and identify features, such as the highest amplitude or the highest frequency)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A method of training a machine learning model for determining the composition of a multicomponent mixture having known constituent components, comprising” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of training a generic machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (training a generic machine learning model). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum for each mixture of a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components, wherein each spectrum is produced using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, this limitation merely describes an attribute of the data that comprises a training set, and therefore such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “training a machine learning model using the extracted plurality of features” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of training a generic machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (training a generic machine learning model). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A method of training a machine learning model for determining the composition of a multicomponent mixture having known constituent components, comprising” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum for each mixture of a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components, wherein each spectrum is produced using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “training a machine learning model using the extracted plurality of features” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1
setting an initial set of hyperparameters; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally set initial hyperparameters, for example, a human can mentally select and set a batch size and learning rate for a neural network)
evaluating a performance of the machine learning model using a test set of spectra of known mixtures; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally evaluate the performance of a machine learning model that was tested using a test set)
updating the hyperparameters; and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally update hyperparameters, for example, a human can mentally select and update a batch size and learning rate for a neural network)
repeating the evaluating and updating steps until an error of the machine learning model is lower than a predetermined threshold. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally repeat each of the evaluating and updating steps until an error of the machine learning model is lower than a predetermined threshold, as the evaluating and updating steps are mental processes as explained above)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises principal component analysis. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally (or with pencil and paper) perform principal component analysis to reduce a larger dataset into a smaller set of principal components)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the machine learning model is a support vector regression (SVR), a ridge regression, a k-nearest neighbors (KNN), a decision tree (DT), a random forest (RF), a linear regression (LR), or an artificial neural network (ANN)” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of machine learning models). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the machine learning model is a support vector regression (SVR), a ridge regression, a k-nearest neighbors (KNN), a decision tree (DT), a random forest (RF), a linear regression (LR), or an artificial neural network (ANN)” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1
the plurality of features is extracted from the more than one spectra (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally (or with pencil and paper) extract features (e.g., highest amplitude and/or frequency) by mentally reviewing more than one spectra)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein more than one spectra are obtained for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein more than one spectra are obtained for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the obtained spectrum is generated from subtracting a spectrum generated using a blank sample from a spectrum generated using a sample comprising the multicomponent mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (the general problem of subtracting a baseline, where sufficient details are not provided as to how the spectrum is obtained). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the obtained spectrum is generated from subtracting a spectrum generated using a blank sample from a spectrum generated using a sample comprising the multicomponent mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 7
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 7 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “machine learning model”).
A method of determining the composition of a multicomponent mixture having known constituent components (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally determine the composition of a multicomponent mixture having known constituent components, for example a human can mentally determine the composition of a red fluid comprising water and a red dye)
extracting a plurality of features from the obtained spectrum (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review obtained spectra and identify features, such as the highest amplitude or the highest frequency)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum of the multicomponent mixture produced by scanning the mixture using FTIR spectroscopy” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “providing the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of using a generic machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (training a generic machine learning model). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, this limitation merely describes an attribute of the data that comprises a training set, and therefore such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “obtaining a concentration of one or more constituent components of the multicomponent mixture from the trained machine learning model” limitation, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum of the multicomponent mixture produced by scanning the mixture using FTIR spectroscopy” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “providing the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “obtaining a concentration of one or more constituent components of the multicomponent mixture from the trained machine learning model” limitation, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”)
Regarding Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein extracting the plurality of features comprises principal component analysis. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally (or with pencil and paper) perform principal component analysis to reduce a larger dataset into a smaller set of principal components)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the machine learning model is a support vector regression (SVR), a ridge regression, a k-nearest neighbors (KNN), a decision tree (DT), a random forest (RF), a linear regression (LR), or an artificial neural network (ANN)” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (particular types of machine learning models). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the machine learning model is a support vector regression (SVR), a ridge regression, a k-nearest neighbors (KNN), a decision tree (DT), a random forest (RF), a linear regression (LR), or an artificial neural network (ANN)” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein more than one spectra are obtained for the multicomponent mixture” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein more than one spectra are obtained for the multicomponent mixture” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the obtained spectrum is generated from subtracting a spectrum generated from a blank sample from a spectrum generated from a sample comprising the multicomponent mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (the general problem of subtracting a baseline, where sufficient details are not provided as to how the spectrum is obtained). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the obtained spectrum is generated from subtracting a spectrum generated from a blank sample from a spectrum generated from a sample comprising the multicomponent mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 12
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 12 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “machine learning model”).
A method of determining formation of a product in a reaction mixture, comprising (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally view a reaction and determine when the product has been fully formed, e.g., watching a reaction between water and red dye and mentally determining when the product has been fully mixed)
extracting a plurality of features from the obtained spectrum; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review obtained spectra and identify features, such as the highest amplitude or the highest frequency)
... extracting a plurality of features (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review obtained spectra and identify features, such as the highest amplitude or the highest frequency)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum of the reaction mixture produced by scanning the mixture using FTIR spectroscopy” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “providing the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of using a generic machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (training a generic machine learning model). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, this limitation merely describes an attribute of the data that comprises a training set, and therefore such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “obtaining from the trained machine learning model a concentration of one or more constituent components of the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “repeating, periodically, the steps of obtaining a spectrum of the reaction mixture, ..., providing the extracted features to a machine learning model, and obtaining a concentration of one or more constituent components until the concentration of the one or more constituent components reaches a predetermined threshold, to determine the formation of the product” limitation, (see same analysis for each of the steps that is repeated above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2)
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “obtaining a spectrum of the reaction mixture produced by scanning the mixture using FTIR spectroscopy” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “providing the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “obtaining from the trained machine learning model a concentration of one or more constituent components of the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “repeating, periodically, the steps of obtaining a spectrum of the reaction mixture, extracting a plurality of features, providing the extracted features to a machine learning model, and obtaining a concentration of one or more constituent components until the concentration of the one or more constituent components reaches a predetermined threshold, to determine the formation of the product” limitation, (see same analysis for each of the steps that is repeated above with respect to Step 2B)
Regarding Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “further comprising quenching the reaction mixture when the concentration of the one or more constituent components reaches a predetermined threshold” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (the result of quenching the reaction mixture). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “further comprising quenching the reaction mixture when the concentration of the one or more constituent components reaches a predetermined threshold” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 14
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 14 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “machine learning model”, “processor”).
extract a plurality of features from the spectrum; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review obtained spectra and identify features, such as the highest amplitude or the highest frequency)
determine the formation of the product when the concentration of the one or more constituent components reaches a predetermined threshold. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally, for example, a human can mentally review the output of a machine learning model, and when it outputs a certain threshold concentration, determine that the product has finished its formation)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”, “processor”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “An apparatus for determining formation of a product” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (determining formation of a product). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “a reactor configured to contain the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (using a reactor as a vessel for containing a mixture). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “an FTIR spectrometer configured to receive a sample of the reaction mixture from the reactor and to produce a spectrum of the sample of the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a FTIR spectrometer. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a FTIR spectrometer, without providing sufficient details concerning any improvements to the FTIR spectrometer). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “a processor in communication with the FTIR spectrometer, the processor configured to” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a processor. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “provide the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of using a generic machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (training a generic machine learning model). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, this limitation merely describes an attribute of the data that comprises a training set, and therefore such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the “obtain from the trained machine learning model a concentration of one or more constituent components of the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “machine learning model”, “processor”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “An apparatus for determining formation of a product” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “a reactor configured to contain the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “an FTIR spectrometer configured to receive a sample of the reaction mixture from the reactor and to produce a spectrum of the sample of the reaction mixture” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “a processor in communication with the FTIR spectrometer, the processor configured to” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “provide the extracted plurality of features to a machine learning model trained using a plurality of mixtures of the constituent components” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “wherein a concentration of each constituent component is known for each mixture of the plurality of mixtures” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the “obtain from the trained machine learning model a concentration of one or more constituent components of the reaction mixture” limitation, this limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (