Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 09/30/2025.
Claims 1, 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-19 are presented in this office action.
Note: Claims 17-19 states (Previously Presented), but claims17-19 are amended claims.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed PCT Application No. PCT/EP2021/067725 filed on 06/28/2021 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Response to amendment/arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, have been fully considered. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. See response to arguments section. The rejection has been maintained.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Please see the response to arguments below.
Response to 103 arguments.
6. Applicants arguments on page 7 regarding independent claim 1 states “LEAKE does not show for each block n+1 hashes, but only exactly one hash H Thus, LEAKE does not show the feature of claim 1 "wherein each record of the database is associated to n+1 record hash values stored m an index of the indexed storage".
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as LEAKE et al discloses, "wherein each record of the database is associated to n+1 record hash values stored in an index of the indexed storage" (Paragraph [0161], [0163] discloses, based on the search query a group of identifiers/ records associated with a data block is accessed based on the hash value stored in the database (Examiner interprets each record in a group of records is associated with the data block hash value stored in the database). Paragraph [0131] discloses, hashes are stored separately).
Applicants arguments on page 7 regarding independent claim 1 states “LEAKE does not show partitioning a query string (QS) into n+1 query partitions, wherein the n+1 query partitions are pairwise disjoint,".
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as LEAKE et al discloses, “partitioning a query string (QS) into n+1 query partitions” (Paragraphs [0116], [0017] discloses, partitioning the query string according to the portioning scheme. Also see Paragraph [0029]), “wherein the n+1 query partitions are pairwise disjoint," (Paragraph [0030] discloses, distinct pairwise partitions. Also see Paragraph [0006], [0074]. (Examiner interprets separate component sequences as pairwise disjoint partitions)).
Applicants arguments on page 7 regarding independent claim 1 states “LEAKE does not show creating a hash value for each query partition resulting in n+1 query hash values”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as LEAKE et al discloses, “creating a hash value for each query partition resulting in n+1 query hash values” (Paragraph [0117] discloses, a hash of length H is computed for each block plus the hash for remaining bits).
Applicants arguments on page 8 regarding independent claim 1 states “LEAKE does not show identifying records having at least one of the hash values m the index equal to the query index”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as LEAKE et al discloses, “identifying records having at least one of the hash values in the index equal to the query index” (Paragraph [0159], [0163] discloses, identifying the matching records by comparing the hash of a query string of symbols with the stored hash strings from the database/ pool of identifiers. Also see [0045]).
Applicants arguments on page 8 regarding independent claim 1 states “searching within the identified records for resulting records fulfilling a search condition, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejection as LEAKE et al discloses, “searching within the identified records for resulting records fulfilling a search condition” (Paragraph [0150] discloses, searching within the pool of identifiers/ records based on search condition. Also see Paragraphs [0125], [0147], [0148], [0161]).
LEAKE et al fails to explicitly teach, “wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition”.
However GAUBATZ et al teaches, “wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition” (Paragraph [0038] discloses, compare a Hamming distance between the received partition information and partition information associated with a stored authentication string and a Hamming distance between the received string and the stored authentication string. Paragraphs [0026], [0027] the processor compares the likelihood of authenticity to a threshold and categorizes authentication strings with a likelihood of authenticity above the threshold as authentic (Examiner interprets record strings as authentication strings and limited search condition as a threshold)).
Therefore LEAKE et al in view of GAUBATZ et al teaches, all the argued limitations.
Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Response to 101 arguments.
7. Applicants arguments on page 5 regarding 101 rejection states “Even if the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea, they are integrated into a practical application reducing candidate records and enabling efficient bounded-distance search This practical application improves the functioning of the computer itself, not merely an abstract post-solution activity”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim limitations of “partitioning a query string…”, “creating a hash value…”, “identifying records….”, “searching the records….” are processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to partition a query string, create a hash value using an algorithm, identify records having hash value equal to the query hash value and search the records with a search condition, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Further the amended limitation “The claimed computer-implemented method performs novel operations on these features of the invention to provide an efficient technical solution for rapidly conducting a search of a massive computer database of a million or more records in a way that was not previously unknown Rather, the claimed method requires a computer operating on very large datasets with specialized indexing Therefore, we respectfully disagree that the invention can be performed by a human mind or with pen and paper”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because searching the database with millions of records can be processed by utilizing a computer as a tool for searching the required query based on the stored indexes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components, or a programmed computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
8. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106; See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Pursuant to Step 1, Claims 18-19 recite a non-transitory computer readable program, which are directed to a manufacture.
Regarding Claims 1, 17,18 and 19 Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Under the 2019 PEG, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Here, claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea categorized under mental processes. Courts consider a mental process if it “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III). Courts also consider a mental process as one that can be performed in the human mind and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. MPEP 2016(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 recites a mental process because the recited steps recite the actions of performing, generating N-Hamming distance search but is recited at a high level of generality that merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106(a)(2)(III). For example, claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 recite limitations of “partitioning a query string…”, “creating a hash value…”, “identifying records….”, “searching the records….” are processes, that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. These limitations are essentially steps of generating and manipulating data at a high level of generality, which can be performed by a person using a computer as a tool. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to partition a query string, create a hash value using an algorithm, identify records having hash value equal to the query hash value and search the records with a search condition, which is mentally performable as an evaluation or judgement. 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.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In this case, as explained above, claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 merely recite a mental process. These limitations of “searching….” and additional components in the form of “database, “processor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium” are recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements “searching….”, “ wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records” amount to mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and data gathering of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recitation of generic computing components is still mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) and does not provide significantly more. The “searching….”, “wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records” element that was identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting when re-evaluated still does not provide significantly more, since this generic data gathering steps. Considering the additional elements in combination and the claim as a whole does not change the analysis, and does not amount to significantly more. Thus the claims are abstract.
Regarding claim 2 recite “user can select or program …” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to select a program from different programs. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement on from where the request is being performed. 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.
Regarding claim 3 recite “searching within the identified records …” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, include additional element “searching….” information amount to mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and data gathering of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4 recite “alphabet of the query string and the record strings comprises twenty or more different symbols” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, include additional element “string comprising different symbols” amount to mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and data gathering of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5 recite “machine learning model comprises a classifier…” This limitations, include additional element “choosing the length of a record” is recited at a high level of generality as generic computer components. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6 recite “query string is partitioned …” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. his limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to divide the query into segments. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement on from where the request is being performed. 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.
Regarding claims 7, 8 recite “ash value for each partition is created by applying a hash function on the partition” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to create a hash value by applying a hash function. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement on from where the request is being performed. 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” and/or “Mathematical process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 9, 10 recite “identifying records ….” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitations, at the high level of generality as drafted, would encompass a user to identify records having the hash value of a record equal to the hash value of the string. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement on from where the request is being performed. 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 and limitation “inputting the activated text segments into an entity extractor” is an additional element. These additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 11, 12 recite “the records of the database are stored in an indexed storage …”, “length of the record string is a further index of the indexed storage” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, include additional element of indexing the record and storing amounts to mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and data gathering of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13 recite “each record comprises a Protein”, “the protein is an antibody, a T-cell receptor or a B-cell receptor”, “These limitations, include additional element which amounts to mere data gathering which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using series of steps and data gathering of the mental process. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16 recite “determining region of a protein” which depends on the same abstract idea as claim 1. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper, in the context of this claim encompasses a user to evaluate or make a judgement on from where the request is being performed. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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 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.
9. Claims 1-7, 11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1) in view of GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1) teaches, Method for performing an n-Hamming distance search in a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of records and an indexed storage, wherein each record comprises a record string (Paragraph [0163] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner interprets each record as single identifier), wherein each record of the database is associated to n+l record hash values stored in an index of the indexed storage, (Paragraph [0161], [0163] discloses, based on the search query a group of identifiers/ records associated with a data block is accessed based on the hash value stored in the database (Examiner interprets each record in a group of records is associated with the data block hash value stored in the database). Paragraph [0131] discloses, hashes are stored separately), wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records ((Paragraph [0100] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner notes, the limitation having records more than 1 million records is an intended use/ depends on the application), wherein the method comprises the following steps: partitioning a query string into n+1 query partitions (Paragraphs [0116], [0117] discloses partitioning the query string according to the portioning scheme. Also see Paragraph [0029]), wherein the n+l query partitions are pairwise disjoint (Paragraph [0030] discloses, distinct pairwise partitions. Also see Paragraph [0006], [0074] (Examiner interprets separate component sequences as pairwise disjoint/ distinct partitions));
creating a hash value for each query partition resulting in n+1 query hash values (Paragraph [0117] discloses, a hash of length H is computed for each block plus the hash for remaining bits);
identifying records having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+1 query hash values resulting in identified records (Paragraph [0159], [0161], [0163] discloses, identifying the matching records by comparing the hash of a query string of symbols with the stored hash strings from the database/ pool of identifiers. Also see [0045]).
and searching within the identified records for resulting records fulfilling a search condition (Paragraph [0150] discloses, searching within the pool of identifiers/ records based on search condition. Also see Paragraphs [0125], [0147], [0148], [0161]).
Leake et al fails to explicitly tech, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition.
GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) teaches, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition (Paragraph [0038] discloses, compare a Hamming distance between the received partition information and partition information associated with a stored authentication string and a Hamming distance between the received string and the stored authentication string. Paragraphs [0026], [0027] the processor compares the likelihood of authenticity to a threshold and categorizes authentication strings with a likelihood of authenticity above the threshold as authentic (Examiner interprets record strings as authentication strings and limited search condition as a threshold)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al by providing, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition, as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0038]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it may be practical to provide additional authentication data within the authentication string or within a second authentication string due to space and visual requirements as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
GAUBATZ et al further teaches, wherein a user can select or program different search conditions as the more limited search condition (Paragraph discloses, user can select/ program a different search conditions as the more limited search condition (Examiner interprets limited search condition as a threshold)) .
Regarding dependent claim 3, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, wherein the searching within the identified records for resulting records is performed with an algorithm which works on the record strings of the identified records to verify the search condition (Paragraph [0150] discloses, searching within the pool of identifiers/ records based on search condition. Also see Paragraphs [0125], [0147], [0148], [0161]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, wherein the alphabet of the query string and the record strings comprises twenty or more different symbols (Paragraph [0029] discloses the strings comprises different symbols. Also see Paragraph [0011]. (note: strings comprises twenty or more different symbols is a design choice)).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, wherein the length of the record strings is smaller than hundred characters (Paragraph [0029] Digital information is received as a first string of symbols having length L. Each symbol in the first string of symbols has a symbol value and a symbol position within the first string of symbols. The symbols may be bits, bytes, a bit string of any length, alphanumeric characters, a character string of any length, or any other suitable symbol. In some implementations, the string of symbols is converted into a bit stream. For example, the string of symbols may consist of six symbols “LETTER”. The string of alphanumeric characters “LETTER” may be converted to binary, resulting in 48 bits (“01001100 01000101 01010100 01010100 01000101 01010010”). (note: record strings is smaller than hundred characters is a design choice).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
GAUBATZ et al further teaches, wherein the query string is partitioned such that at least one of the n+I partitions comprises a non-consecutive character sequence of the query string (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0023] discloses, string is partitioned and partitions comprises a non-consecutive character sequence of the query string such as ABEBDEDCABAB with number of partitions).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, wherein the hash value for each partition is created by applying a hash function on the partition (Paragraph [0045] discloses, hash value for each block/ partition. Also see Paragraphs [0014], [0075]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, wherein the records of the database are stored in an indexed storage with the n+l hash values of the records working as indices for the indexed storage, wherein the identified records are identified by searching the n+l query hash values in the respective n+1 hash value indices (Paragraph [0174] The leaf node so reached holds the block ID identifying, the physical address of the block, and can also hold the hash of the block (i.e., records are indexed and stored with associated hash values).
Regarding independent claim 17, Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1) teaches, a method for generating an n-Hamming search index for a database allowing an n-Hamming distance search in the database (Paragraph [0107] generating search and indexing. Also see Paragraph [0100]), wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records ((Paragraph [0100] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner notes, the limitation having records more than 1 million records is an intended use/ depends on the application), the method comprises for each record of the database the following steps: partitioning the record string into n+I record partitions (Paragraphs [0116], [0117] discloses partitioning the query string according to the portioning scheme. Also see Paragraph [0029]), wherein the n+1 record partitions are pairwise disjoint (Paragraph [0030] discloses, distinct pairwise partitions. Also see Paragraph [0006], [0074]. (Examiner interprets separate component sequences as pairwise disjoint partitions)).
creating a hash value for each record partition resulting in n+1 record hash values (Paragraph [0117] discloses, a hash of length H is computed for each block plus the hash for remaining bits); Leake et al fails to explicitly tech, and storing the n+l record hash values as n-Hamming search index value for the record in the n-Hamming search index .
GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) teaches, and storing the n+l record hash values as n-Hamming search index value for the record in the n-Hamming search index (Paragraph [0038] discloses, compare a Hamming distance between the received partition information and partition information associated with a stored authentication string and a Hamming distance between the received string and the stored authentication string.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al by providing, storing the n+l record hash values as n-Hamming search index value for the record in the n-Hamming search index as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0038]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it may be practical to provide additional authentication data within the authentication string or within a second authentication string due to space and visual requirements as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding independent claim 18, Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1) teaches, a non-transitory computer program for performing an n- Hamming distance search in a database, the non-transitory computer program comprising instructions, when executed on a processor, configured to perform in the processor the steps (Paragraph [0204]): wherein the method comprises the following steps; partitioning a query string (QS) into n+l query partitions (Paragraphs [0116], [0117] discloses, partitioning the query string according to the portioning scheme. Also see Paragraph [0029]) , wherein the n+1 query partitions are pairwise disjoint (Paragraph [0030] discloses, distinct pairwise partitions. Also see Paragraph [0006], [0074]. (Examiner interprets separate component sequences as pairwise disjoint partitions));
creating a hash value for each query partition resulting in n+l query hash values (Paragraph [0117] discloses, a hash of length H is computed for each block plus the hash for remaining bits);
identifying among a plurality of records of a database records having at least one record hash value equal to-one of the hash values resulting in identified records (Paragraph [0159], [0163] discloses, identifying the matching records by comparing the hash of a query string of symbols with the stored hash strings from the database/ pool of identifiers. Also see [0045]), wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records ((Paragraph [0100] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner notes, the limitation having records more than 1 million records is an intended use/ depends on the application), wherein each record of the database comprises a record string, wherein each record of the database is associated to n+l record hash values stored in an index of the database (Paragraph [0161], [0163] discloses, based on the search query a group of identifiers/ records associated with a data block is accessed based on the hash value stored in the database (Examiner interprets each record in a group of records is associated with the data block hash value stored in the database). Paragraph [0131] discloses, hashes are stored separately) and searching within the identified records for resulting records fulfilling a search condition (Paragraph [0150] discloses, searching within the pool of identifiers/ records based on search condition. Also see Paragraphs [0125], [0147], [0148], [0161]).
Leake et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition.
GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) teaches, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition (Paragraph [0038] discloses, compare a Hamming distance between the received partition information and partition information associated with a stored authentication string and a Hamming distance between the received string and the stored authentication string. Paragraphs [0026], [0027] the processor compares the likelihood of authenticity to a threshold and categorizes authentication strings with a likelihood of authenticity above the threshold as authentic (Examiner interprets record strings as authentication strings and limited search condition as a threshold)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al by providing, wherein the search condition is that the record strings of the resulting records have a Hamming distance smaller than or equal to n with respect to the query string or a more limited search condition, as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0038]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it may be practical to provide additional authentication data within the authentication string or within a second authentication string due to space and visual requirements as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding independent claim 19, Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1) teaches, a non-transitory database with an n-Hamming search index allowing an n-Hamming distance search (Paragraph [0100] discloses plurality of records being indexed. Examiner interprets each block as a record), the database comprising a plurality of records (Paragraph [0163] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner interprets each record as single identifier), wherein the plurality of records comprises more than 1 million records ((Paragraph [0100] discloses, plurality of records being indexed. Examiner notes, the limitation having records more than 1 million records is an intended use/ depends on the application), wherein each record comprises a record string and an n-Hamming search index value (Paragraph [0007]), wherein the n-Hamming search index value of the respective record comprises n+l record hash values, wherein the n+1 record hash values correspond to the hash values of n+l record partitions of the respective record ((Paragraph [0117] discloses, a hash of length H is computed for each block plus the hash for remaining bits), wherein the n+1 record partitions of the respective record are pairwise disjoint (Paragraph [0030] discloses, distinct pairwise partitions. Also see Paragraph [0006], [0074]. (Examiner interprets separate component sequences as pairwise disjoint partitions)).
Leake et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein n- Hamming search index is constituted by the n-Hamming search index values of the records.
GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) teaches, n- Hamming search index is constituted by the n-Hamming search index values of the records (Paragraph [0038] discloses, compare a Hamming distance between the received partition information and partition information associated with a stored authentication string and a Hamming distance between the received string and the stored authentication string. Paragraphs [0026], [0027] the processor compares the likelihood of authenticity to a threshold and categorizes authentication strings with a likelihood of authenticity above the threshold as authentic (Examiner interprets record strings as authentication strings and limited search condition as a threshold)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al by providing, n- Hamming search index is constituted by the n-Hamming search index values of the records, as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0038]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, it may be practical to provide additional authentication data within the authentication string or within a second authentication string due to space and visual requirements as taught by GAUBATZ et al (Paragraph [0012]).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1), GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) and in view of Schneider; Zvi (US 20200044826 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the hash value for each partition is created by applying a hash function on the combination of the partition and a salt information.
Schneider; Zvi (US 20200044826 A1) teaches, wherein the hash value for each partition is created by applying a hash function on the combination of the partition and a salt information (Abstract a hash function with content-based salt includes identifying a data block (block b) of a given size, dividing the data block into x number of segments, selecting y number of bytes from each of the segments, totaling y_total bytes, and performing a bitwise and/or on a z number of the ytotal bytes. The bitwise and/or operation produces S(b). An aspect further includes calculating a hash function on the data block producing a number of bytes hash).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al t by providing wherein the hash value for each partition is created by applying a hash function on the combination of the partition and a salt information, as taught by Schneider et al (Abstract, Paragraph [0003]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, would improve security measures to safeguard data s taught by Schneider et al (Paragraph [0001]).
11. Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1), GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) and in view of Nandy, Sagnik (US 2012/0016883 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the step of identifying records having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+1 query hash values resulting in identified records corresponds to identifying records having for at least one i being a natural number between 1 and n+1 the i-th hash value of the record string equal to the i-th hash value of the query string as the identified records.
Nandy, Sagnik (US 2012/0016883 A1) teaches, wherein the step of identifying records having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+1 query hash values resulting in identified records corresponds to identifying records having for at least one i being a natural number between 1 and n+1 the i-th hash value of the record string equal to the i-th hash value of the query string as the identified records (Paragraph [0039] discloses, identifying records having at least one record hash value equal to one of the query hash values with number of records matching the query hashes).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by providing wherein the step of identifying records having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+1 query hash values resulting in identified records corresponds to identifying records having for at least one i being a natural number between 1 and n+1 the i-th hash value of the record string equal to the i-th hash value of the query string as the identified records, as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0039]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, he disclosed method reduces the number of data records to a candidate subset. The field values of this subset can be examined directly to determine if a true match exists as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the identified records are identified as the records cumulatively having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+I query hash values resulting in identified records and having the same length as the query string.
Nandy, Sagnik (US 2012/0016883 A1) teaches, wherein the identified records are identified as the records cumulatively having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+I query hash values resulting in identified records and having the same length as the query string (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0046] discloses, identifying composite records/ cumulative records having record hash value equal to query hash value having same length).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by providing wherein the identified records are identified as the records cumulatively having at least one record hash value equal to one of the n+I query hash values resulting in identified records and having the same length as the query string, as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0046]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the disclosed method reduces the number of data records to a candidate subset. The field values of this subset can be examined directly to determine if a true match exists as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the length of the record string is a further index of the indexed storage.
Nandy, Sagnik (US 2012/0016883 A1) teaches, wherein the length of the record string is a further index of the indexed storage (Paragraph [0044] discloses the length of the record is indexed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by wherein the length of the record string is a further index of the indexed storage, as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0044]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the disclosed method reduces the number of data records to a candidate subset. The field values of this subset can be examined directly to determine if a true match exists as taught by Nandy et al (Paragraph [0046]).
12. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leake; Devin (US 20200185057 A1), GAUBATZ; Matthew (US 20170206535 A1) and in view of Hoos, Axel (US 2022/0411512 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, protein (Paragraph [0168]).
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein each record comprises a Protein.
Hoos, Axel (US 2022/0411512 A1) teaches, wherein each record comprises a Protein (Paragraph [0030] Swiss Protein database).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by providing wherein each record comprises a Protein, as taught by Hoos et al (Paragraph [0030])
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, Understanding and searching biological sequences.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the protein is an antibody, a T-cell receptor or a B-cell receptor.
Hoos, Axel (US 2022/0411512 A1) teaches, wherein the protein is an antibody, a T-cell receptor or a B-cell receptor (Paragraph [0045] the transmembrane domain can be the transmembrane domain of CD proteins, such as CD4, CD8, CD3 or CD28, a subunit of the T cell receptor, such as α, β, γ or δ, a subunit of the IL-2 receptor (α chain), a submit of the Low-Affinity Nerve Growth Factor Receptor (LNGFR or p75) (β chain or γ chain), or a subunit chain of Fc receptors. Paragraph [0061] the anti-BCMA antigen binding protein is an antibody comprising a heavy chain variable region CDR1 (“CDRH1”) comprising an amino acid sequence. Also see Paragraph [0009]),
Regarding dependent claim 15, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Leake et al further teaches, amino acid sequence (Paragraph [0168]).
Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein the record string is an amino acid sequence.
Hoos, Axel (US 2022/0411512 A1) teaches, (Paragraph [0030] discloses, record string is an amino acid sequences of the donor antibody).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by providing wherein the record string is an amino acid sequence, as taught by Hoos et al (Paragraph [0030])
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, understanding protein structure and function.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al teach, the method according to claim 1.
Hoos, Axel (US 2022/0411512 A1) teaches, wherein the record string is a complementarity-determining region of a protein (Paragraph [0033] “CDRs” (complementarity-determining region) are defined as the complementarity determining region amino acid sequences of an antigen binding protein).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Leake et al and GAUBATZ et al by providing wherein the record string is a complementarity-determining region of a protein, as taught by Hoos et al (Paragraph [0033])
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, methods can be determined to provide the “minimum binding unit”. The minimum binding unit may be a sub-portion of a CDR for treating a disease as taught by Hoos et al (Paragraph [0036]).
Closest Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Brittan; Steven Johnathan (US 20150295717 A1) teaches, n S34, the authentication engine 2 encodes each of the initial candidate identification patterns using the one-way hashing function used in S11, using preferably salt1.sub.x provided as a data in data table 1, and compares each of them with the encoded initial segment c1u.sub.x of the authentication code, also encoded in S11 using salt1.sub.x. A comparison in S35 is performed until a match, if any, can be found. In the example, the authentication engine 2 runs up to 1296 iterations of all possible MIP positions inferred by the first four digits of the OTC, to see if a match can be found with encoded record for c1u.sub.x (Paragraph [0309]).
14. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated the rejection as presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights