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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/26 has been entered. Currently claims 16, 17, 20-29, are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
For claim 20, it is not clear how the scope of claim 16 is being further defined by what is recited in claim 20. Claim 16 has been amended to recite that the evaluation value calculation execution device determines that a compatibility of mixed fermentation for the mixed biogas materials improves as the methane yield described in (g) increases, provided that the conditions described in (a) to (f) are satisfied. Claim 20 recites the same element albeit in slightly different language. Claim 16 already recites that compatibility increases when the yield in (g) increases provided that conditions (a)-(f) are satisfied, so what is being further recited via claim 20?. The scope of claim 20 is considered to be indefinite because it is not clear what is being further recited that would further limit the scope of claim 16. The examiner is trying to determine if the claims are further limiting such that it would be considered to be a proper dependent claim.
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 16, 17, 20-29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 16, 17, 20-29 recite a device and a non-transitory computer readable medium such that they are considered to pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, with respect to claims 16, 27, 29, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of estimating/calculating resource recovery for biogas materials, which is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea as will be set forth below.
Using claim 16 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 27, 29, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receive input data regarding a machine learning library for biogas materials or property data related to biogas materials;
estimate an evaluation value for resource recovery of biogas materials by performing an estimation process based on the property data
the evaluation value corresponding to at least one of the following evaluation values regarding mixed biogas materials:
(a) the C/N ratio being 25 or higher;
(b) the lipid/VS ratio being 35 or lower;
(c) the lipid/carbohydrate ratio being 13 or higher;
(d) the protein/carbohydrate ratio being 26 or higher;
(e) among micronutrients, whether iron is 165 mg/kg-COD raw material or higher, cobalt is 14 mg/g-COD raw material or higher, and nickel is 5 mg/g-COD raw material or higher;
(f) the Na concentration being less than 5.6 g/L; and
(g) the methane yield during mixed fermentation,
wherein the property data includes at least one of the following: type, collection location, property, and quantity of biomass materials
and wherein the evaluation value calculation execution device determines that a compatibility of mixed fermentation for the mixed biogas materials improves as the methane yield described in (g) increases, provided that the conditions described in (a) to (f) are satisfied
The claimed concept reflected by the above noted claim elements is used in the context of an overall recycling process where food waste material, such as from a restaurant, is sent to a processing facility for recycling. The claimed invention is determining an estimated value for the recovery of biogas, such as methane. This includes determining a recovery value for biogas based on data that represents the processing plant, see claim 17 for example. This is claiming a commercial practice/interaction that is the concept of evaluating the feasibility of processing certain waste at a given plant, so that the plant can prioritize and process certain waste and in order to provide for stable operations at the processing plant, and to maximize biogas yield. This is considered to be a commercial practice that is used to recycling waste, and is a fundamental economic concept. Determining biogas yield as a result of recycling waste to convert the waste to a usable energy source is an economic practice that is involved in the management of recycling and the operation of processing facilities that process waste to obtain biogas. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities. The claimed invention is data analysis (an evaluation or judgement) that is being undertaken to determine what kind of waste can be recycled and turned into a biogas.
Also, the claimed evaluation, absent the recitation to machine learning, can be done by a person mentally. The mental process category for abstract ideas includes making evaluations or judgements or observations or opinions. The claimed invention is reciting the use of data to make an estimate of the amount of biogas that can be recovered, and is fully capable of being performed by a person mentally. The claims are additionally taken to be a mental process that can be performed by a person who is analyzing waste data to calculate recovery values. For the above reasons, the claims 16, 27, are found to be reciting an abstract idea at step 2A.
For claims 16, the additional elements are the recitation to an input device, a machine learning device executing a machine learning model to receive the machine learning library or property data from the input device, a learning process execution device configured to learn setting values…., and the evaluation value calculation execution device. For claim 27, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that execute the claimed steps, and the at least one computing device with a hardware processor that stores instructions as is recited in claim 29. These elements are claiming the use of “device(s)” to perform the steps that define the abstract idea in combination with the use of a device that executes a machine learning model.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) in combination with the use of a machine learning model, that is recited at a high level of generality. With respect to the claimed devices that are recited as performing the steps/functions that define the abstract idea, this is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The claimed use of the machine learning model is also taken as a general link to use of the computers and machine learning, which is a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Machine learning by definition requires the model to be able to learn and that is done by using the machine learning library that contains the data that the model is trained on. A machine model learning (being trained) is inherent to machine learning and does not amount to more than a general link to the use of machine learning in general. See MPEP 2106.05(h) with respect to a link to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, the above is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device(s) and a device that uses machine learning to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the PEG found in the MPEP 2106 where the considerations at the 2nd prong and step 2B overlap when the issue at hand in a claim is mere implementation by a computer.
For claims 17, 28, the following elements are a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 16:
data regarding the operational status of a biogas plant is configured to be input
wherein the data regarding the operational status of the biogas plant is further processed
estimate an evaluation value regarding resource recovery of biogas materials by performing an estimation process based on both the property data and the data, regarding the operational status of the biogas plant
wherein the data regarding the operational status of the biogas plant includes at least one of the following:
the type of biogas material used at the plant;
the fermentation method;
the presence and amount of additives, such as coagulants;
the VS volume load per cubic meter of a methane fermentation tank;
the organic decomposition rate in the methane fermentation tank;
the methane gas generation amount in a gas holder; and
the measured methane yield (BMP)
The above elements are simply reciting more about the abstract idea of claim 16 and further define how the estimation of the value for the resource recovery is being performed. This is part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of the input device, the value calculation execution device and the machine learning are additional elements and have been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 16 to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 20, the claimed determining of the compatibility of mixed fermentation for mixed biogas as claimed, is a further recitation to the same abstract idea as set forth in claim 16. No further additional element has been claimed. The calculation execution unit has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 16, to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 21, 22, the claimed evaluation values including a value regarding mixed biogas material as claimed and the claimed conditions of claim 22, are elements that are a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 16. All that is claimed is part of the abstract idea. People can do what is claimed using pen and paper or by performing the claimed step mentally. There are no further additional elements claimed. The calculation execution device has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 16, to which applicant is referred. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 23, the claimed predicting of and determining appropriate types of quantities, etc., is an element that is part of the abstract idea of claim 16. The claimed prediction and determination is part of the abstract idea and is something that can be done by a person, including mentally. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 24, the claimed estimation that is recited is part of the abstract idea. Estimating the claimed variables can be done by people and is part of the abstract idea as far as the data processing that is occurring in the claims. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 25, reciting that the machine learning library includes at least one of the following examples for data is an element that is part of the abstract idea and is reciting information per se. The data that is part of the training library is an element that is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B; therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 26, the claim recites an additional element of the communication device configured to communicated with a network and a data transmission that is sending the evaluation value estimation via the network. This is claiming the use of a computer connected to a network for data transmission, and is akin to reciting “apply it” with a computer and a network such as the Internet. This does not define more than a general link to the use of computers connected by a network , which does not provide for integration or significantly more at step 2B. The claim is not found to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 16, 17, 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The 35 USC 112b rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim that has corrected the indefiniteness problem with claim 28.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 12 of the reply the applicant repeats statements from the examiner that explains the limitations that describes the abstract idea and why it is considered to be an abstract idea. The comments on page 12 are noted.
On page 13 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims have been amended to recite a specific technical device that can calculate and determine the suitability of mixed biogas materials for co-digestion. The applicant argues that the claims are specifically tied to machine learning for concrete biochemical parameters, physical fermentation constraints, operational thresholds, and technical relationships between methane yield and fermentation compatibility. This is not persuasive. The calculation and determining of suitability of biogas materials for co-digestion is arguing the abstract idea of the claims. The fact that the claims recite a calculation device as being used to do what is claimed is an instruction for one to use a computing device to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. As to the machine learning of the claims, the recited use of the machine learning model in the claims is a general link to use of the computers and machine learning, which is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Machine learning by definition requires the model to be able to learn and that is done by using the machine learning library that contains the data that the model is trained on. A machine model learning (being trained) is inherent to machine learning and does not amount to more than a general link to the use of machine learning in general. The execution of a machine learning model, that uses the training data from the machine learning library to learn, so that the claimed evaluation can occur is simply reciting the use of machine learning as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The extent of the use of any machine learning in the claim is that there is a machine learning library, a model is executed, and the model learns from the information in the machine learning library. This is claiming a link to machine learning and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
On page 13 the applicant argues that the examiner has not considered the claims as a whole and argues that the claims do not recite a fundamental economic practice. The applicant argues that the claims recite machine learning that is specifically tied to biological parameters, fermentation variables, and methane yield estimation. This is not persuasive and is more or less arguing that the claims are simply using machine learning to accomplish the abstract idea. The claims do nothing more than to instruct one to use machine learning as the tool to execute the abstract idea to estimate a methane yield (recovery of the biogas materials). The argument that the tie to machine learning renders the claims eligible is not persuasive.
On page 14, the applicant argues that waste recycling is not automatically a certain method of organizing human activity and just because it has an economic impact does not mean it is abstract. In a general sense the examiner agrees that there can be waste recycling inventions that are eligible and that are have economic results, but that is all dependent on the claimed invention and the concept at hand. Looking at the instant pending claims, the claims are not reciting an industrial process that is recycling waste but is reciting a process by which methane yield estimation is being calculated by a computer, so that a person can make the decision as to whether or not to recycle a given waste material. For the reasons set forth in the rejection of record, the claims are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities that is a commercial practice. As is stated in the specification in paragraph 003, it is recognized that recycling of biomass is desirable, and not all biomass can be economically processed to yield usable biogas. Performing calculations to determine whether or not to process a given waste product, based on an expected (estimated) biogas yield, is economic in nature and is something that people can perform manually, and is still considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities.
Also, the claimed evaluation, absent the recitation to machine learning, can be done by a person mentally. The mental process category for abstract ideas includes making evaluations or judgements or observations or opinions. The claimed invention is reciting the use of data to calculate an estimate of the amount of biogas that can be recovered, and to determine fermentation compatibility, and is fully capable of being performed by a person mentally. Whether one considers the claims to be a certain method of organizing human activities or a mental process, they both result in a finding at step 2A that the claims recite a judicial exception.
On pages 15-19 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
The applicant argues on pages 15-16 that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem. This is not persuasive as the calculation of the amount of methane yield that one can expect from a given waste material is not technical, that is making an estimation that ultimately is performing math. The applicant repeats elements (a) through (g) of the claims and argues on page 16 that the claims are reciting a specific technical device that can calculate and determine the suitability of mixed biogas materials for co-digestion. The applicant argues that the claims are specifically tied to machine learning for concrete biochemical parameters, physical fermentation constraints, operational thresholds, and technical relationships between methane yield and fermentation compatibility. This is the same argument that was presented on page 13, and is not persuasive for the same reasons already addressed by the examiner. The calculation and determining of suitability of biogas materials for co-digestion is arguing the abstract idea of the claims. The fact that the claims recite a calculation device as being used to do what is claimed is an instruction for one to use a computing device to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. As to the machine learning of the claims, the recited use of the machine learning model in the claims is a general link to use of the computers and machine learning, which is a link to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Machine learning by definition requires the model to be able to learn and that is done by using the machine learning library that contains the data that the model is trained on. A machine model learning (being trained) is inherent to machine learning and does not amount to more than a general link to the use of machine learning in general. The execution of a machine learning model, that uses the training data from the machine learning library to learn, so that the claimed evaluation can occur is simply reciting the use of machine learning as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The extent of the use of any machine learning in the claim is that there is a machine learning library, a model is executed, and the model learns from the information in the machine learning library. This is claiming a link to machine learning and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
On pages 16-18, the applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claims improve the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or field. The applicant argues that the specification teaches a technical solution to a technical problem. This is not persuasive because when one looks at the result of the claim, it is not improving technology or any device recited in the claims. The claims simply result in an estimate of the recovery value for resource recovery for biogas materials being calculated and determining that compatibility increases if conditions (a)-(f) are satisfied. This does not improve technology and itself is just an estimate of an amount and a compatibility determination. While this information may be useful to a human being, the calculation device is not being improved by simply making the claimed estimation and determination. The claims do not serve to improve the functioning of the calculation device or any technology, and is not improving the machine learning of the claims.
On page 18, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to generic data analysis of generalized business forecasting. The examiner has not alleged such so this argument is not persuasive. The claims are narrower than generic data analysis and do not recite generalized business forecasting because the claims recite a specific form of data analysis that is done in the recycling field to estimate the yield of biogas that can be obtained from a given waste material. The allegation that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite the use of machine learning based evaluation of biochemical methane fermentation compatibility in the biogas production and methane fermentation field, is not persuasive. This is more or less just arguing that because the claims recite machine learning for the calculation of the resource recovery value it is a practical application in the biogas production field. This is not persuasive because the claims do no more than to link the execution of the abstract idea to the use of machine learning. This does not provide for integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f), (h). This is just an instruction to use machine learning for the estimation of biogas recovery, which does not provide for an inventive concept that renders the claims eligible.
On pages 19-21 the applicant argues that the claims include significantly more than the abstract idea. On page 20 the applicant cites the claim language for a third time and argues that the claimed device is used to determine a compatibility of mixed fermentation for mixed biogas materials improves as the methane yield in (g) increases, as long as conditions (a)-(f) are satisfied. The applicant then repeats the same argument that the claims are reciting a specific technical device that can calculate and determine the suitability of mixed biogas materials for co-digestion. For reasons already addressed, this is not persuasive. The device is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer (and machine learning) to execute the abstract idea. For reasons already addressed, this does not amount to providing significantly more than the abstract idea.
On page 20 the applicant generally alleges that the claimed elements are unconventional in nature, are specific in nature, are using machine learning setting values to specific methane fermentation constraints, and physicochemical thresholds. The applicant argues that the claims are more specific than generalized data analysis. This is not persuasive. The claimed elements that define the abstract idea do not have to be proven as being conventional in nature or non-specific in nature to be found to be ineligible under 35 USC 101. The fact that the claims recite more than just the concept of “generalized data analysis” misses the point that the claimed elements and the specific analysis at hand is what defines the abstract idea. In Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom (2016), claims directed at collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting a result were found to be abstract. The court in Electric Power Grid stated that with respect to the kind of data being collected and analyzed, “Accordingly, we have treated collecting information including when limited to particular content (which does not change it character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas”. Also stated was “And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”. In EPG, the claims did not recite “generalized data analysis” but were still found to be reciting an abstract idea that was not eligible, so the argument that the claims are not so broad as to capture any and all data analysis is not persuasive.
On page 21 the applicant refers to the declaration from one of the co-inventors, named Kunihiro Sahara. The applicant counsel alleges that the declaration establishes that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more. The declaration has been considered by the examiner and is not found to be persuasive. The declaration is assumed to be directed to independent claims 16, 27, 29 as the declaration does not identify any specific claim(s). In general, the declaration is introducing the opinion of one of the inventors with no evidence being provided other than an opinion. The examiner assumes that the declaration is being filed as a 1.132 declaration to introduce evidence into the record even though the declaration is not labeled as such. The examiner notes that there is no supporting evidence that accompanied the declaration, contrary to what the applicant states on page 21 of the reply. All that is submitted is the declaration itself in the form of opinion evidence. The declaration has been considered as follows for each of the statements:
Statement number 1 is noted. There is no evidence to consider.
For statement 2, the comments are noted, but the comments are not related to the claimed invention. The general statements regarding the business dealings of TBM Co. are noted.
For statement 3, the comments are noted. The comments appear to be the opinion of the declarant regarding the state of the art that is comparing the invention to known systems. This is not related to the eligibility of the claims under 35 USC 101 and is not introducing evidence of eligibility.
For statement 4, the comment about what the subject matter of the claims are noted. The examiner does however disagree with the statement from the declarant that the claims are a system that matches a source of food waste such as a restaurant and food factories with biogas plants that perform methane fermentation and methane gasification using food waste. The claims do not recite matching food waste to a biogas plant as the declarant states. All that is done is to calculate an estimate of the resource recovery value for recovery of biogas materials and to determine that compatibility increases if conditions (a)-(f) are satisfied. The statement from the declarant is more of a general summary of the disclosed invention than a statement that is directed to any specific claim language in the pending claims.
For statement 5, the examiner notes that what has been stated as being in the claimed invention, is not actually claimed. The claims do not recite that the claimed invention classifies food waste into technical categories and determines compatibility with specific biogas plants using a methane resource recovery estimation model that performs methane yield prediction, synergy prediction, and inhibition diagnosis. The statement from the declarant is not commensurate with the claims.
For statement 6, what is argued as being claimed is not commensurate with the pending claims. The claims do not recite the determination of mixing ratios and gasification promoter parameters, and does not recite allocation instructions that control the physical distribution of food waste to selected plants. Also not claimed in the claims is the receiving of feedback data for actual gas production and updating the model. The statement from the declarant is not commensurate with the claims.
For statement 7, the declarant is making a general allegation that the invention improves the functioning of a biogas production system. This is not persuasive and is not introducing evidence other than a general allegation/opinion of the declarant. As is already addressed by the examiner, the result of the claims is not improving technology in any manner. Statement 7 is taken as opinion evidence that is little more than a general allegation or statement of disagreement with the position that has been taken by the examiner. This does not amount to persuasive evidence that points to the claims being eligible, especially when much of the basis for the stated conclusion is based on subject matter statements that have no support in the pending claims.
For statement 8, the declarant states that gas production is increased, fermentation stability is improved, laboratory testing is reduced, etc.. The claims do not recite a process by which gas is being produced and what has been alleged is not a result of the claimed invention. This is a general allegation that is arguing aspects of the invention that are outside of the claim scope. The claims estimate the resource recovery value for biogas recovery and determine that fermentation compatibility increases in a certain circumstance. The result of the claim does not do anything but inform a human being of information. Gas production is not improved by just making an estimate and determining compatibility. Fermentation stability is not improved by making an estimate, etc.. The alleged improvements being argued are not a result of the claimed invention. The declarant is not addressing the claimed invention in the claimed scope that is pending in the pending claims.
For statement 9, the argued “feedback driven updating of the estimation model” that provides a continuous learning capability is also noted as being something that is not found in the claims. Again, the declarant is making statements and arguing features that are not found in the claims. What is being argued is not even claimed so it cannot be considered persuasive.
For statement 10, the statement about the field of use (the field the invention is applied to) is noted. No evidence that relates to the claims is being offered in statement 10.
For statement 11, the applicant alleges that the argued operations (many of which are not in the claims) result in improved gas production and plant performance. The examiner notes that the claims make an estimate and determine compatibility increases, neither of which server to improve gas production (that is not claimed) and/or serves to improve plant performance (no plant is claimed). The comments from the declarant are not commensurate with the actual scope of the claims.
For statement 12, all that is done is to generally allege that the claims improve technology, while also arguing some aspects of the invention that are not claimed (mixing ratio determination). The comment is noted but is not persuasive because it is just a general allegation that does not amount to evidence of eligibility or to a technological improvement as a result of the claimed invention.
For statement 13, the declarant, who is arguably one of skill in the art, is trying to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claims improve technology by providing a concreate improvement to biogas production technology and to the operation of computer systems used to model and control biochemical processes. The declarant states their opinion that the claims are not an abstract idea. This is nothing but opinion evidence from an interested party to the patent being granted, and is the same as the applicant’s counsel arguing that the 101 is not proper. As the examiner has already addressed, the claims do not improve technology. The claims do not recite anything about producing gas so the claims cannot be seen as improving gas production technology. The claims also do not recite the controlling of a biochemical process. The declarant is making assumptions and statements about the claimed invention that are not accurate in view of the pending claims. In the end, the opinion of the declarant is noted, but is not found to be persuasive to overcome the 101 rejection.
The content of the declaration is a traversal of the 101 rejection that is the opinion of one of the two inventors to the application. The declaration is based on inaccurate statements about the claimed subject matter, and is simply the opinion of one of the co-inventors. Other than generally alleging that the claims improve technology, no other evidence is found in the declaration. For the above reasons, the submitted declaration is not found to be persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The prior art rejection has been overcome by the most recent amendments. The amendment to the claims has introduced the subject matter of dependent claim 20 into the independent claims such that the claims as a whole are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record. Reasons for allowance will be set forth if and when the applicant is allowed as the claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights