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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues their encoding improves machine learning models by compressing chemical reaction encoding systems to improve the efficiency of machine learning model training. Remarks 11. Applicant does not claim training in the independent claims, therefore the claims cannot possibly be directed to an improved training method. Claim 14 is directed to a training method but the training method is claimed in the broadest possible terms so that the training step amounts to insignificant extra solution activity.
Applicant argues that their method of encoding “enables far more accurate and efficient training and implementation of classifiers, transformers and regressors.” Remarks 11. The accurate and efficient training is not claimed at all, and the training step is not claimed until dependent claim 14, so this argument cannot remove the 101 rejection to the independent claim.
Applicant’s amendments required new 112 rejections while not fully resolving some of the 112 rejections of record.
Applicant’s amendments overcame the art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite the mental concept of encoding chemical formulas, determining something about the formulas and encoding the determination without significantly more – Applicant’s “encoding” is a form of notation for machine readable chemical formulas/reaction graphs. This type of notation can be done be done mentally or with pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is merely linked to the field of chemistry. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing device and display of results on a computer interface are generic computers and insignificant extra-solution activity, respectively.
Claim 9 is directed to a particular machine that carries out the reaction in a physical device – and produces the product from the reagents. This amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim 13 is 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. Applicant claims determining a “compression of at least two strings of characters according to claim 10…” This is not described in the specification.
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.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 10-18 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, as presently presented, contain numerous substantive and formal deficiencies that render them unclear and indefinite. The language used is inconsistent and imprecise, and several terms lack proper antecedent basis or fail to distinctly define the subject matter regarded as the invention. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to correct these errors, ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and present the invention in clear, concise, and definite terms.
Claim 4 recites “the string of characters corresponding to the encoding of changing bonds…” This term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the step of determination…” There are multiple different steps of determination, therefore this term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10-13 recites the limitation “[S/s]tring of characters…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are either multiple versions of the claimed string, or the claimed the/said string doesn’t line up with the strings as previously named.
Claim 12 recites “the step of receiving…” There are multiple receiving steps, not just one.
Claim 14 recites “the compressed encoding”, this lack antecedent basis. The “chemical reaction bond evolution” lacks antecedent basis. The “input” lacks antecedent basis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Hicks whose telephone number is (571)270-3377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-4 PST.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/AUSTIN HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights