The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 13 April 2026. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 11 includes limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable.
Claim 18 is objected to.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-19.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain grammatical error, “determine …” should be “determines …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typo “frequencies are be used at the core process …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 is a method claim that claims the method is “on a computing system of claim 1”, but then claims that a processor executes steps. It confuses a system claim with a process claim. 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.
In claim 11, claim limitations "core DNA process engine", "wave resolver", have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The specification does not provide descriptions of the structure of these elements.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim(s) limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b) Rejection
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, including metaphorical terminology lacking structural / procedural definitions: a “biome”, an “ecosystem”, a “generic strand”, a “DNA structure”, “core DNA strand”, “protein”, “organism”, “cross-pollinated”, “harmonic key”, “raises it by an octave”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claims are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 8, 9, “the system”, lack of antecedent basis, the claim is therefor indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “the computing system”.
Regarding claim 5, “the internal structures”, lack of antecedent basis, the claim is therefor indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “internal structures”.
Regarding claim 8, uses permissive language: “the system may add, by extension …” claims must define what a system does or is structured to do, not what it “may” do, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 10 uses permissive language: “the computing system may raise the harmonic key …” claims must define what a system does or is structured to do, not what it “may” do, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, "core DNA process engine", "wave resolver", the specification does not provide sufficient structural description to determine the scope of these limitations, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, “the method of claim 19, further comprising …”, this is a self-referential loop, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of applying prior art, this limitation is construed to be “the method of claim 18, further comprising …”.
Regarding claims 2-19, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
Examiner notes that when there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it is not proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See e.g., MPEP 2173.06. Because the Examiner was unable to ascertain the metes and bounds (i.e., the scope) of the invention as claimed, the Examiner was unable to conduct a specific prior art search on the subject matter of these claims. However, the Examiner did perform a general art search and, to the extent the Examiner understands the invention as claimed, the Examiner has compared the claims to the prior art, citing references that appear to teach the limitations of the claims.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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. The claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, including metaphorical terminology lacking support of structural / procedural description: a “biome”, an “ecosystem”, a “generic strand”, a “DNA structure”, “core DNA strand”, “protein”, “organism”, “cross-pollinated”, “harmonic key”, “raises it by an octave”, the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description for these limitations. The claims are therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the claim states that the system “create new proteins” based on arranged protein to identify a process. The claims provide no algorithm explaining how a software processor determines the arrangement of these entities to output entirely new entities. The claims are therefore rejected for lack of enablement.
Regarding claim 11, "core DNA process engine", "wave resolver", the specification does not provide sufficient structural / procedural description for these limitations. The claims are therefore rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 15, the claim states that an organism can create stability by “generating the data through a new data type, and not limited by cloud space or infrastructure or physical space”. This violated basic physical laws of computing. All software must occupy physical space. Claiming a system “not limited by physical space” is un-enabling on its face unless the specification discloses a breaking technology that does not need physical space. The claims are therefore rejected for lack of enablement.
Regarding claims 2-19, which depend on above rejected claim 1, are rejected for the same reason.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-19 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-17,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ determine at least one biome for analyzing the received context data; compares a first genetic strand to a second genetic strand related to data associated with the received context data; determines a third genetic strand, based on the first genetic strand and the second genetic strand, that is a new genetic strand of data different from the first and second genetic strands; integrates the at least one biome with the third genetic strand; determine relevancy of the first and second strand and other biomes” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determine”, “compares”, “integrates”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A computing system that has an application that captures input and develops an integrated environment using biomes with user preferences that are replicated and transferred between different biomes; wherein the computing system comprises at least one computing device, wherein at least one processor of the computing device executes the following …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives context data related to an event”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)); (c) “updates the computing system associated with the determined relevancy…”, which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “A computing system that has an application that captures input and develops an integrated environment using biomes with user preferences that are replicated and transferred between different biomes; wherein the computing system comprises at least one computing device, wherein at least one processor of the computing device executes the following …”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives context data related to an event”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)), which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). 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"); (c) “updates the computing system associated with the determined relevancy …”, which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-19 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-19 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites further limitation of “… uses proteins that are arranged to identify a process or object, and … creates new proteins”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 3, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the system uses a DNA structure associated with the user and sends the DNA structure to another system associated with a different user or a different ecosystem of DNA, to become actualized within the user's set context associated with the event”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional element of “sends the DNA structure to another system associated with a different user or a different ecosystem of DNA”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “sends the DNA structure to another system associated with a different user or a different ecosystem of DNA”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein frequencies are be used at the core process to organize and reproduce data from within a core DNA strand, wherein each DNA strand harbors a unique signal”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the system further determines commonality between each of the at least one biome and the internal structures; and organizes internal structures for maintaining consistency between each respective biome”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the biomes are sustainable when integrated within each of the at least one biome, based on genes of the at least one biome, and are not integrated when genes are less likely to be used by the at least one biome”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the genetic strands selected determine the growth of the computing system and user preferences of the event”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the system may add, by extension, at least one set of musical and digital signal processing rules, bound by transformations”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites further limitation of “… further uses harmonics at core processing to organize and reproduce data from within a core DNA strand, and the harmonics are used to construct a new signal”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites further limitation of “… determines a harmonic key, which acts as a gateway to filter through the signal and find any harmonics within its scale; wherein the computing system may raise the harmonic key by an octave and produce new strands with the same key fundamentals”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 11, the claim recites further limitation of “…includes an angular component, creating vectors from each filtered harmonic and increasing a frequency, based on checking the vector dot product and clearing out any non-zero results, and each strand is constructed with a float value for the frequency, wherein the frequency gets added by a core DNA Process Engine based on determining relevance through a wave resolver”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting server computer, processor, computer-readable medium coupled with the processors, the steps of factorizing / initializing / optimizing matrixes, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites further limitation of “… based on evolving growth, wherein completion of a network between multiple noded systems enables growth from between each node of the respective noded system”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites further limitation of “… wherein each of the at least one biome … becomes replicated, cross pollinated and distributed among each biome, and each of the at least one biome communicates with the other biomes”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites further limitation of “… creating the event for the user based on user associated preferences; wherein the created preferences are based on the frequency of actions and structured to acknowledge the context between the biome's event frequency, and also recognize variables of the event”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites further limitation of “… wherein each sum of proteins can create an organism, each organism can create stability by not seeking out the data, but generating the data through a new data type, and not limited by cloud space or infrastructure or physical space”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation of “… determines a new type of meta-layer, making an ecosystem of context that evolves and integrates with the computing system in the network”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recites further limitation of “… further allows a user to transfer a DNA strand associated with the user between different contexts, allowing for automation of background and usage specific task”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 18-19,
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 18,
Step 1: The claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “ determine at least one biome for analyzing the received context data; compares a first genetic strand to a second genetic strand related to data associated with the received context data; determines a third genetic strand, based on the first genetic strand and the second genetic strand, that is a new genetic strand of data different from the first and second genetic strands; integrates the at least one biome with the third genetic strand; determine relevancy of the first and second strand and other biomes” (mental process and/or math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determine”, “compares”, “integrates”, in the limitation citied above encompasses observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “…executing an integrated environment application on a computing system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor of the computing device executes the following steps…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives context data related to an event”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)); (c) “updates the computing system associated with the determined relevancy…”, which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly. the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) “…executing an integrated environment application on a computing system of claim 1, wherein at least one processor of the computing device executes the following steps…”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (b) “receives context data related to an event”, which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)), which is extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). 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"); (c) “updates the computing system associated with the determined relevancy …”, which is extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 18. Therefore, claim 19 recites the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites further limitation of “… further comprising the step of comparing two proteins in a biome and wherein create a third protein different from the compared two proteins in the biome”, which is further process of observing / analyzing / processing data received from environment to form / update data representation based on relevancy, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-19.
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 13 December 2022, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
Regarding the amended independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 18.
Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Woubaybi et al., US-PGPUB NO.20200310394A1 [hereafter Woubaybi] teaches context data analysis for industrial systems. However Woubaybi does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
Rogynskyy et al., US-PGPUB NO.20190361873A1 [hereafter Rogynskyy] teaches structure update based on analyzing / comparing context activitivies. However Woubaybi does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
Chism et al., US-PGPUB NO.20170277810A1 [hereafter Chism] teaches profile data updates on computer based on relevance of data analysis. However Chism does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
Rathod et al., US-PGPUB NO.20110153759A1 [hereafter Rathod] teaches online communication integration via analyzing context data. However Rathod does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
Frasconi et al., “A general framework for adaptive processing of data structures, IEEE Transactions on neural network, Vol.9, No.5, September 1998 [hereafter Frasconi] teaches adaptive data structure analysis framework. However Frasconi does not teach the specific claimed process / structure of analyzing & processing context data for an event with three data structures to update the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights