DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are examined.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to Chinese Application No. 2022109295703, filed 08/03/2022. Therefore, the Effective Filing Date (EFD) assigned to each of the claims 1-10 is the filing date of Chinese Application No. 2022109295703, filed 08/03/2022. However, certified copies of the priority documents have not been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/06/2023 has been reviewed. However, the Information Disclosure Statement does not contain any references and thus is not considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/06/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, such as in paragraph [0059] of the Specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2 and 8, the conjugations are inconsistently used, as some limitations say for example “construct” and another says “selecting”. The claims should recite steps in the same tense format.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “a data providing unit configured to provide…” and “a data cleaning unit configured to screen and filter…”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the units are interpreted as described in paragraph [0104] of the Specification, as either computer-readable program code, or a hardware component within the device, which is interpreted as a generic computer. However, the Specification does not describe the algorithms with which the structures perform the functions, in a manner that provides description for a special purpose computer for performing claims 7-9 (see MPEP 2181.II.B).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Specification as originally filed provides support for “in addition to implementing the system provided by the present invention and its various devices, modules, and units in a pure computer-readable program code manner, they may also be implemented to realize the same functions in the form of logic gates, switches, application-specific integrated circuits, programmable logic controllers, embedded microcontrollers, and the like, by performing logic programming on the steps of the method” (paragraph [0104]). However, the Specification does not provide description for the algorithms with which the units perform the function in order to provide sufficient support for a special purpose computer.
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 2, and 6-9 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.
With respect to claims 2 and 8, the claims recite the limitation of “the data structure of the original drug-target interaction data set”. The claims are indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the data structure of the original drug-target interaction data set” and thus it is unclear what is included in the subset data structure.
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation of “use the way of the flag values”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the flag values” or for “the way of the flag values”. Thus, it is unclear what is being used.
With further respect to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation of “converted from binary to integer values to store, in order to store a plurality of relationships”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the term “store” was used twice erroneously or if the flag value is stored.
With further respect to claim 6, the claim recites the limitation of “in order to store a plurality of relationships in the same as the adjacency matrix of the graph. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the plurality of relationships are stored in as the claim recites “in the same as the adjacency matrix”.
With respect to claim 7, claim limitations “a data providing unit configured to provide” and “a data cleaning unit configured to screen” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification discloses that the units may be pure computer-readable program code or a hardware unit (paragraph [0104], but the Specification does not describe the algorithms with which the computer units perform the function and thus it is unclear what the acts for performing the entire claimed function are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With further respect to claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of “based on the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the graph”.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 7 and as they do not resolve the indefiniteness issues.
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.
Claim 7-9 are rejected ---under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “units” and described as being directed to computer-readable code in the Specification, and thus they are directed to “software per se”; i.e., software is not limited to a particular structure and given the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the claims encompass a software system containing software components. As such, the claims are non-statutory because they comprise a program comprising no structure, which reads on carrier waves which read on transitory propagating signals and are not proper patentable subject matter because they do not fit within any of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Nuijten, Feder. Circuit, 2006). Note: Claim 7-9 are included within the steps of identifying eligible subject matter because if the device claims were amended to fit into one of the four statutory categories of invention, they would still be rejection for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims recite a method and devices.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mental processes recited in claims 1, 7, and 10:
screen and filter the original drug-target interaction data set according to a predetermined cleaning rule to obtain a drug-target interaction data set to be studied
wherein the predetermined cleaning rule is based on characteristics of a data structure of an adjacency matrix of a graph
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 9 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 7, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claims 2 and 8: “construct a general data structure”, “selecting a subset data structure in the general data structure, wherein the subset data structure includes the data structure of the original drug-target interaction data set”, “convert the subset data structure of step 2 into a data structure based on the adjacency matrix of the graph”, “complete data cleaning based on the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph”
Claims 3 and 9: “based on the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph, completing the logical relationship and calculating the distance”
Claim 4: “a storage mode of the adjacency matrix of the graph adopts a sparse matrix recorded by row”
Claim 5: “the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph is such that multiple relationships are stored in the adjacency matrix of the same graph”
Claim 6: “in the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph, use the way of the flag values converted from binary to integer values to store, in order to store a plurality of relationships in the same as the adjacency matrix of the graph”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than performing mathematical concepts to analyze data, and then filter the data based on the analysis. Steps of screening and filtering data can be performed mentally as one of ordinary skill can choose to remove or alter data based on a rule. Furthermore, generating matrices and generating adjacency matrices are mathematical concepts. Thus, the claims recite using mathematical concepts for generating graphs, and using these mathematical concepts to perform a mental process.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claims 1, 7, and 10 recite the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
providing an original collection of drug-target interaction data
a data providing unit
a data cleaning unit
a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is used for storing one or more computer instructions and the one or more computer instructions are executed by the processor
The step of providing an original collection of drug-target interaction data gathers the data on which the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The elements of a data providing unit, data cleaning unit, memory, and processor are directed to elements of a generic computer. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
None of the dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).I, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 10: The additional elements of providing an original collection of drug-target interaction data, a data providing unit, a data cleaning unit, a memory comprising computer instructions, and a processor do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the computer elements, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “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”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). With respect to providing data, it is disclosed in paragraph [0003] of the Specification that at present, there are a large number of published or private drug-target interaction data in the field. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ezzat et al. (“Drug-Target Interaction Prediction with Graph Regularized Matrix Factorization”, ACM Transactions of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, published June 2017).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, Ezzat et al. teaches a method for cleaning drug-target interaction data, comprising:
providing an original collection of drug-target interaction data (page 647, column 2, Section 2; page 647, column 2, Section 3.1); and
screening and filtering the original drug-target interaction data set according to a predetermined cleaning rule to obtain a drug-target interaction data set to be studied, wherein the predetermined cleaning rule is based on characteristics of a data structure of an adjacency matrix of a graph: Ezzat et al. teaches generating a Gaussian interaction profile kernel for a new drug, from which a drug network similarity matrix is obtained, and teaches each dataset containing an adjacency matrix; the drug network similarity matrix is combined with a drug chemical similarity matrix to generate an aggregating function with a regularization parameter, which is used to make a prediction of drug and target pairs (page 647 column 2, Section 3.1 – page 648, column 1) thereby preventing false positives.
Furthermore, Ezzat et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, as evidenced by the use of algorithms and networks (Abstract) and thus inherently teaches a device comprising a memory, processor, and data providing and cleaning units.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the claims are directed to the predetermined cleaning rule including step 1: construct a general data structure, step 2: selecting a subset data structure in a general data structure, where the subset data structure includes the data structure of the original drug-target interaction data set, step 3: convert the subset data structure of step 2 into a second data structure based on the adjacency matrix of the graph, and step 4: complete data cleaning based on the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph. Ezzat et al. teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 7. Ezzat et al. also teaches the steps comprising step 1: constructing data structures comprising the data (page 648, column 2, Section 2), step 2: selecting subsets such as drug-target interactions, drug pairwise chemical structure similarities, or target genomic sequence similarities (page 648, column 2, Section 2), step 3: generating adjacency matrices based on these data subsets (page 648, column 2, Section 2), and combining the adjacency matrices to make predictions for the target and the drug and combining these to create an aggregating function (page 647, column 2, Section 3.1 – page 648, column 1, paragraphs 1 and 2, and step 4: using the aggregation function to obtain results in the data (page 648, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the claims are directed to based on the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph, completing the logical relationship and calculating the distance. Ezzat et al. teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 7. Ezzat et al. also teaches based on the data structure of the matrix, performing the logical relationship that computes the network and drug chemical similarities (page 647, column 2, Section 3.1) and calculating the distances in order to predict drug-target pairs (page 648, column 1).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to a storage mode of the adjacency matrix of the graph adopting a sparse matrix recorded by row. Ezzat et al. teaches the method of claim 1. Ezzat et al. also teaches the storage mode of the adjacency matrix adopting a sparse matrix that preserves the local geometries of the original data, thus rows (page 649, Section 4.2.1) and the row vectors (page 650, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph being such that multiple relationships are stored in the adjacency matrix of the same graph. Ezzat et al. teaches the method of claim 1. Ezzat et al. also teaches that multiple relationships (page 647, column 1, final paragraph; page 648, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is directed to in the data structure of the adjacency matrix of the graph, using the way of the flag values converted from binary to integer values to store, in order to store a plurality of relationships in the same as the adjacency matrix of the graph. Ezzat et al. teaches the method of claim 5. Ezzat et al. also teaches performing a weighted K nearest known neighbors preprocessing step that transforms the binary values in the given drug-target matrix into interaction likelihood values (page 648, column 2, Section 4) and stores multiple drug target relationships (page 648, column 2, Section 4.1).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights