CTNF 18/095,707 CTNF 101692 DETAILED ACTION Claim Status Claims 1-40 are rejected. Claims 7-9 and 27-29 are objected to. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application claims Domestic Benefit to application # 63338620 , filed 05/05/2022. Domestic Benefit is acknowledged. Therefore, the effective filing date of claim(s) is 05/05/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 01/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of list of references cited from each IDS is included with this Office Action. Drawings The drawings filed on 01/11/2023 are accepted. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8 and 28 objected to because of the following informalities: The acronym “OSDA” is used without being defined in the claims . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7, 9, 27 and 29 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims do not end in a period . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims list equations but do not limit what the terms in the equation are. If terms are not defined in a claim, then it is impossible to determine the scope that the claims are intended to encompass. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter ( Step 1 : YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea: 1, 21. quantifying an interaction of the molecule M and the framework F with a physics-based simulation; 1, 21. calculating, based on the simulation, for each of a plurality of component indices, a corresponding component index value associated with the molecule M framework F pair; 1, 21. calculating a value of a multi-factor index associated with the molecule M :framework F pair based on the plurality of component index values associated with the molecule M : framework F pair, wherein the value of the multi-factor index represents an affinity of the molecule M to the framework F; thereby generating a binding matrix containing the multi-factor index value for each molecule-factor pair; 1, 21. ranking the molecules M based on the multi-factor index values associated with the molecules M; and selecting a subset of the molecules M based on the rankings. 2, 22. wherein selecting the subset of the molecules M comprises selecting some number of the highest-ranking molecules M. 3, 23. wherein the plurality of indices comprises a binding energy index, and wherein calculating the component index value Ebind corresponding to the binding energy index for the molecule M : framework F pair comprises calculating:wherein Ebind is the binding energy between the templating agent and crystal, wherein Epose is the energy of the bound pose, wherein Emolecuie is the energy of the isolated molecule M, and wherein Eframework is the energy of the isolated framework F. 4, 24. wherein calculating the component index value Ebind corresponding to the binding energy index for the molecule M : framework F pair further comprises normalizing the binding energy by framework atom. 5, 25. wherein calculating the component index value Ebind corresponding to the binding energy index for the molecule M : framework F pair further comprises normalizing the binding energy by count of template molecules. 6, 26. wherein the plurality of indices comprises a competition energy index, which quantifies the templating ability of a given molecule towards the framework F when all other polymorphs of the framework F are taken into consideration. 7, 27. wherein the competition energy is calculated as: C i j = e x p ( - E i j k T ) ∑ j = z e o e x p ( - E i j k T ) 8, 28. wherein the plurality of indices comprises a directivity energy index, which ranks the templating ability of each of the molecules M towards the framework F when all OSDAs are taken into consideration. 9, 29. wherein the directivity energy index is calculated as: D i j = e x p ( - E i j k T ) ∑ i = O S D A e x p ( - E i j k T ) 11, 31. wherein calculating the value of the multi-factor index associated with the molecule M : framework F pair comprises calculating a geometric mean of the plurality of component index values associated with the molecule M : framework F pair. 12, 32. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting a plurality of additional proposed molecules; adding the plurality of additional proposed molecules to the plurality of proposed molecules to produce a revised set of proposed molecules M;' and performing the method of claim 1 on the revised set of proposed molecules M'. 13, 33. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting a subset of the plurality of proposed molecules M; removing the subset from the plurality of proposed molecules to produce a revised set of proposed molecules M;' and performing the method of claim 1 on the revised set of proposed molecules M'. 14, 34. The method of claim 13, wherein selecting the subset of the plurality of proposed molecules M comprises selecting the subset of the plurality of proposed molecules M based on the ranking of the plurality of proposed molecules M. 20, 40. quantifying the interaction of the molecule M and the framework F takes into account the particular position. The limitations for “quantifying”, “calculating,” “ranking,” and “selecting” refer to verbal equivalents for mathematical calculations carried out over the molecules and frameworks, which are strings and variables. A human being with a pen and paper is capable of carrying out the prescribed calculations. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. While claims 1 and 21 recite performing some aspects of the analysis with a “processor” or “system”, there are no additional limitations that indicate that this analysis engine requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental process or mathematical concept in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. 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 if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-40 recite an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES). Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic treatment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements: 1. A method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program code stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium 1, 21. a plurality of proposed molecules M 1, 21. a plurality of proposed nanoporous host frameworks F 10, 30. wherein the plurality of proposed nanoporous host frameworks F comprises a plurality of zeolites. 15, 35. wherein at least one of the plurality of proposed frameworks F is a known framework. 16, 36. wherein at least one of the plurality of proposed frameworks F is a hypothetical, and not yet realized, framework. 17, 37. wherein at least one of the plurality of proposed molecules M is a known molecule. 18, 38. wherein at least one of the plurality of proposed molecules M is a hypothetical, and not yet realized, molecule. 19, 39. wherein each of the plurality of frameworks F is all-silica. 20, 40. wherein at least one of the plurality of frameworks F includes at least one aluminum atom at a particular position 21. 21. A system comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer program code stored thereon, wherein the computer program code is executable by at least one computer processor to perform a method The limitations that the method or system acts upon a plurality of proposed molecules or frameworks are similar to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is a type of “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” that amounts to “mere data gathering.” There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed system or processor or the formats of the provided data require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. As such, claims 1-40 are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO). Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The instant claims recite additional elements enumerated above, in the section on step 2A. The limitations that the method or system acts upon a plurality of proposed molecules or frameworks, which were found to be mere data gathering in step 2A are also found to be well-understood, routine and conventional. In the manner it is recited, being acted upon by a processor, it is similar to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. It is also similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed system or processor requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-40 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 10-15, 17-22, 30-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al (ACS Central Science 2021 7 (5), 858-867) in view of McChesney (https://jlmc.medium.com/understanding-three-simple-statistics-for-data-visualizations-2619dbb3677a, 2016) . Regarding claim 1, Jensen describes an algorithm that takes in molecules (in this case OSDAs) and frameworks, and outputs new alternative OSDAs that could create new zeolites, given a target framework. (pg 862 left col ¶ 2). A subset of molecules were selected based on PCA (862 right col ¶ 1). The molecules were ranked based on binding energy, and further subset was formed based on this (863 left col ¶ 2, fig. 3). The binding energy, which quantifies possible interactions between OSDA and frameworks, which is equivalent to the “component index” of the instant application, was based on a physics-based simulation: “Since few OSDAs are known for SFW, we use molecular mechanic simulations to calculate the binding energy of each of the generated molecules with the SFW framework to gauge our model’s predictive ability, rather than comparing to known molecules as for CHA.” (pg 863 left col ¶ 1) Jensen is silent as to a plurality of component indices or multi-factor index. Multi-factor indexes are taught by McChesney, who writes “The geometric mean is also excellent for constructing composite indices, utilizing very different sorts of data that are all scored differently” (§ “Different Scales”). Implementing the algorithm of Jensen on a computer is an obvious automation, see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 2, that the molecules are subsetted based on binding energy is taught by Jensen (fig. 3). Concerning claim 10, the host frameworks are zeolites in Jensen (abstract). Regarding claim 11, using a geometric mean for the multi-factor index is taught by McChesney, who writes “The geometric mean is also excellent for constructing composite indices, utilizing very different sorts of data that are all scored differently” (§ “Different Scales”). With respect to claim 12, additional OSDA strings were generated and added to the training set (pg 864 left col ¶ 4). Moving on to claim 13, MPEP § 2144.04.II(A) states that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Considering claim 14, the molecules were ranked based on binding energy, and further subset was formed based on this (863 left col ¶ 2, fig. 3). Regarding claims 15 and 17, the frameworks and molecules are known frameworks and molecules extracted from literature (pg 859 right col ¶ 3). Concerning claim 18, additional OSDA strings were generated and added to the training set (pg 864 left col ¶ 4). With respect to claim 19, pure silicon zeolites are part of the training set (860 left col ¶ 1). MPEP § 2144.04.II(A) states that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Regarding claim 20, aspects of the atoms’ positioning and the presence of an aluminum atom are part of the training features for the method (pg 864 left col ¶ 3). Claims 20-22, 30-34, 35, 37, and 38-40 are identical to the claims listed above, only differing in that the claims are drawn to “a system.” The arguments against claims 1-2, 10-14, 15, 17, 18-20 apply, mutatis mutandis . Regarding claims 1-2, 10-14, 15, 17, 18-22, 30-34, 35, 37, and 38-40, An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use a multi-factor index with a geometric mean in the text of McChesney, in order to weight multiple kinds of data with different methods of ranking according to their scales, creating a single harmonized variable (McChensey, § “Different Scales”). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as there is nothing blocking the index of McChesney. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Jensen by adding the index of McChesney, in order to weight multiple kinds of data with different methods of ranking according to their scales, creating a single harmonized variable (McChensey, § “Different Scales”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and McChesney as applied to claim s 1-2, 10-14, 15, 17, 18-20 above, and further in view of Schwalbe-Koda and Gomez-Bombarelli (ChemRxiv.13270184.v2. 21 January 2021, henceforth “Schwalbe-Koda”) . Jensen and McChesney teach the limitations this claim is dependent upon. Schwalbe-Koda teaches the claimed binding energy calculation (pg 3 left col ¶ 1). Regarding claims 4 and 5, Schwalbe-Koda suggests that some form of weighting or normalization may be needed to account for the differences of atoms and framework molecules in calculating zeolite binding energies (pg 7 right col ¶ 2). Claims 23-25 are identical to the claims listed above, only differing in that the claims are drawn to “a system.” The arguments against claims 3-5 apply, mutatis mutandis . Regarding claims 3-5 and 23-25, An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use the binding energy calculation in the text of Schwalbe-Koda, because it is an improvement to previous binding energy calculations (pg 3 left col ¶ 1). There is a suggestion to use weighting to account for the differences in the text of Schwalbe-Koda (pg 7 right col ¶ 2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as Schwalbe-Koda’s method is meant specifically for zeolite prediction. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Jensen by adding the calculation of Schwalbe-Koda, in order to receive the benefits of the improved binding energy calculation . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-9 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and McChesney as applied to claim s 1-2, 10-14, 15, 17, 18-20 above, and further in view of Theefffactor’s Stack Exchange thread (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3542623/distribution-of-exponential-divided-by-sum-of-exponentials, 2020, henceforth “Factor”) . Jensen and McChesney teach the limitations these claims are dependent upon. Factor asks about an equation “Yi:=nXi/∑ni=1Xi”, which is similar to the equations in claims 7 and 9. “Henry” answers that the equation would scale a value based on the sum of the all the other values in the group, which is what is called for in claims 6 and 8. Claims 26-29 are identical to the claims listed above, only differing in that the claims are drawn to “a system.” The arguments against claims 6-9 apply, mutatis mutandis . Regarding claims 6-9 and 26-29, An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use the above equation in the text of Factor, because it scales what was previously unscaled to the distribution. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as there is nothing blocking this calculation from being added to the computational method. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Jensen by adding the calculation of Factor, in order to scale what was previously unscaled . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and McChesney as applied to claim s 1-2, 10-14, 15, 17, 18-20 above, and further in view of Moliner et al ( Accounts of Chemical Research 2019 52 (10), 2971-2980) . Jensen and McChesney teach the limitations this claim depends upon. Regarding claim 16, Moliner teaches predicting hypothetical zeolite frameworks (pg 11 ¶1-3). Since hypothetical molecules are already added to the method of Jensen, adding hypothetical variables is taught by Jensen. Claim 36 is identical to the claim listed above, only differing in that the claims are drawn to “a system.” The arguments against claim 16 apply, mutatis mutandis . Regarding claims 16 and 36, An invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led that person to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. There is a teaching to use prediction of hypothetical zeolite frameworks in the text of Moliner (pg 11 ¶1-3). Moliner suggests combining hypothetical and real zeolite frameworks for NN training (pg 12 ¶ 1). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as there is nothing blocking hypothetical zeolite frameworks from being used in this method. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the method of Jensen by adding the hypothetically predicted zeolite frameworks of Moliner to the training, in order to expand the amount of usable training data. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACELYN M HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-9871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Olivia M. Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /G.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685 /OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 2 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 3 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 4 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 5 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 6 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 7 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 8 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 9 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 10 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 11 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 12 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 13 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/095,707 Page 14 Art Unit: 1685
Prosecution Insights