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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 07/20/2026, 02/25/2026, 07/08/2025, 03/21/2025, 05/07/2024 and 03/29/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A method executed by a computer, the method comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
acquiring a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds;
“acquiring a chemical structure …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds).
The “chemical structure” is a mathematical concept/degree/value/amount.
calculating an estimate value of a physical property value of each of the low molecular weight compounds and a variation of the estimate values, from the acquired chemical structure of each of the low molecular weight compounds, by using a regression model; and
abstract idea
math process
“calculating an estimate value of a physical property value of each of the low molecular weight compounds and a variation of the estimate values ~” is a math process performed using mathematical/arithmetic algorithm (i.e., a regression model).
“spectrum of the plurality of IMF components” and “frequency components” are mathematical concepts/values/amounts.
calculating an acquisition function from the estimate values of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“calculating an acquisition function …” is math or mental process based on the mathematically calculated result. (See at least paragraphs 0075-0080).
Claims 1-17 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. Claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “calculating an estimate value of a physical property value of each of the low molecular weight compounds and a variation of the estimate values, from the acquired chemical structure of each of the low molecular weight compounds, by using a regression model” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the estimate value of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values based on the routine data (i.e., the acquired chemical structure of each of the low molecular weight compounds), where these calculations are performed by using a mathematical/arithmetic algorithm (i.e., the regression model). Similarly, “calculating an acquisition function from the estimate values of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the acquisition function from the mathematical results (i.e., the estimate values of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values) previously calculated using the mathematical algorithm. (See at least paragraphs 0065 and 0075-0080 in the instant application).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor to perform mathematical calculations of “calculating an estimate value of a physical property value of each of the low molecular weight compounds and a variation of the estimate values, from the acquired chemical structure of each of the low molecular weight compounds, by using a regression model” and “calculating an acquisition function from the estimate values of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values”. The limitation of “acquiring a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds” is an insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (i.e., the chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “acquiring a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds” is an insignificant pre-solution activity to merely gather routine data (i.e., the chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the processor to perform “acquiring a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds”, “calculating an estimate value of a physical property value of each of the low molecular weight compounds and a variation of the estimate values, from the acquired chemical structure of each of the low molecular weight compounds, by using a regression model” and “calculating an acquisition function from the estimate values of the physical property value and the variation of the estimate values” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-10, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “determining the low molecular weight compound for which an expected improvement is maximum, in a case where the acquisition function is the expected improvement” in the context of claim 2 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the low molecular weight compound based on the previously calculated result (i.e., the calculated acquisition function).
The limitation of “selecting at least one of the low molecular weight compounds from among the plurality of the low molecular weight compounds” in claim 3 is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., the low molecular weight compounds) used to perform abstract idea related to a mathematical calculation (i.e., generating the regression model). The limitation of “generating the regression model by using the chemical structure of the selected at least one of the low molecular weight compounds and a measured value of the physical property value of the selected at least one of the low molecular weight compounds” in claim 3 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the regression model, where the regression model is indicative of a mathematical concept/algorithm.
The limitations of “replacing the chemical structures of the plurality of the low molecular weight compounds with a plurality of types of descriptors” and “selecting at least one of the low molecular weight compounds from among the plurality of the low molecular weight compounds based on the plurality of types of descriptors” in claim 4 are insignificant extra-solution activities to collect routine data (i.e., the low molecular weight compounds) used to perform abstract idea related to a mathematical calculation (i.e., generating the regression model). The limitation of “generating the regression model by using the chemical structure of the selected at least one of the low molecular weight compounds and a measured value of the physical property value of the selected at least one of the low molecular weight compounds” in claim 4 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the regression model, where the regression model is indicative of a mathematical concept/algorithm.
The limitation of “converting the chemical structures of the plurality of the low molecular weight compounds into character strings” in claim 5 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the converted character strings, where the converting step is indicative of a mathematical concept/relationship.
Claim 5 has similar limitations as of a part of claim 4 above, and it is therefore rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
The limitations of “the estimate value is an average value of a probability distribution, and the variation is a standard deviation of the probability distribution” in claim 7, and “the regression model is a Gaussian process regression model” in claim 9 are indicative of mathematical values/concepts/algorithm.
The limitation of “correcting the estimate value of the physical property value; and generating the regression model by using the chemical structure of the low molecular weight compound for which the estimate value of the physical property value has been corrected, and the corrected estimate value of the physical property value” in claim 10 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the estimate value of the physical property value and the regression model, where the correcting step is indicative of a mathematical concept/relationship.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation of “replacing a chemical structure of a plurality of low molecular weight compounds with a plurality of types of descriptors; and selecting a most diverse group of compounds from among the plurality of the low molecular weight compounds, by selecting a combination in which det (XTX) is maximum for the plurality of types of descriptors” may encompass mathematical calculations for selecting a most diverse group of compounds using a mathematical function of “det (XTX)”. (See at least paragraphs 0065 and 0075-0080 in the instant application)
Regarding Claims 12-14, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 11. Claim 12 has similar limitations as of a part of claim 4 above, are insignificant extra-solution activities to collect routine data (i.e., the low molecular weight compounds) used to perform abstract idea related to a mathematical calculation (i.e., generating the regression model), and they are therefore rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above. The limitation of “generating a regression model by using the chemical structure of the low molecular weight compounds forming the most diverse group of compounds and a measured value of a physical property value of the low molecular weight compounds forming the most diverse group” in claim 14 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the regression model, where the regression model is indicative of a mathematical concept/algorithm.
Regarding Claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of the computer is a high-level of generality merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claim 16, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the processor and the memory are a high-level of generality merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claim 17, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the server; the user terminal, the processor and the memory are a high-level of generality merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. The limitation of “presenting the acquisition function to the user terminal” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to show the mathematically calculated result on the user terminal which is performed by a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MINAMI et al. (US 20200142951 A1) teaches receiving a requirement for a target physical property of a desired polymer, and acquiring structural information of polymers, where each polymer corresponding to the acquired structural information, the polymer design device estimates physical property information of the polymer including a mean value and a standard deviation, based on the structural information of the polymer and a regression model, and calculates a score of the polymer based on the requirement for the target physical property and based on the mean value and the standard deviation. And from among the acquired structural information of the polymers, the polymer design device selects at least one polymer as the desired polymer, based on the score of each of the polymers, and outputs information of the selected at least one polymer.
MAXSON et al. (US 20200051671 A1) teaches a method to involve training a selection model based on a graphical dataset, in which the graphical dataset has a node-edge graph identifying relationships between uses and properties of a polymer, receiving a request with the intended use via a user interface, determining a polymer for the intended use based on the selection model, and outputting the determined polymer via the user interface, where a decision tree is generated based on the graphical data set, and the decision tree is outputted via the user interface, and the list of polymers indicated is generated for the intended use based on the decision tree.
Mir et al. (US 20200082913 A1) teaches systems and methods for determining a sequence of at least a portion of a target polymer from a subject, where a combined plurality of localizations based at least in part on each respective plurality of fluorophore localizations is determined for each image file in the one or more image files, where each localization in the combined plurality of localizations includes a target polymer position identity and a spatial location, the plurality of localizations are segmented into one or more target polymer strands, each target polymer strand corresponds to a respective subset of localizations and target polymer position identities, and a respective target polymer sequence is assembled using each subset of localizations for each target polymer strand, thereby providing a set of target polymer sequences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights