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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 12 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2025, was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2 recite limitation “the scale category is selected from a group of scale categories, the group of scale categories including:”.
Claims 7 recite limitation “the first scale category and the second scale category are selected from a group of scale categories, the group of scale categories including:”.
The above limitations are Markush grouping that has been incorrectly claimed.
See MPEP 2173.05(h), where a proper Markush-type limitation has the following format: “...alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"”. This limitation uses “comprising”, therefore it’s not a proper Markush limitation where you can pick one of the alternatives. According to the same MPEP section, “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.
Correction Example:
Claims 2 “the scale category is selected from a group of scale categories, the group of scale categories consisting:”.
Claims 7 “the first scale category and the second scale category are selected from a group of scale categories, the group of scale categories consisting:”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casavant et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20220199194 A1 (Hereinafter “Casavant”).
Regarding claim 1, Casavant discloses A computing device configured to store one or more multiscale models of chemical kinetics, the computing device comprising:
a processor; a memory; and programming in the memory, wherein execution of the programming by the processor configures the computing device to implement functions (para. [0047, 0092-0093]), including functions to:
receive an input model of chemical kinetics (a cellular metabolic sub-model 210 with any number of sub-models which input and/or output with other sub-models or the cellular metabolic sub-model; the reaction (kinetics) network includes input molecule nodes; para [0026], [0027], [0031], [0034]);
categorize the input model with a scale category (by categorizing molecule nodes according to the number of edges into and out of each node, the reaction network can be condensed and simplified; the reaction classification module classifies a reaction into a category of reactions sharing similar reaction rates; reactions may also be classified in part based on the type of reaction; para [0053], [0073]);
test the input model based on a quality test (the use of the long timescale model for a single "test", also referred to as a single "simulation"; multiple simulations can be run using model 410 in series or in parallel using different sets of initial molecules along with the specification of other simulation parameters; para [0063]);
extract metadata from the input model (the input anchor may contain metadata linking it to the membrane transport pathway, or other cellular mechanism from which it is sourced to the reaction network; para [0041]);
store the input model based on the scale category and results of the quality test (edges 312 and 326 (computing device nodes) may store metadata further specifying the details of the chemical reactions (kinetics) within the reaction network; by categorizing molecule nodes according to the number of edges into and out of each node, the reaction network can be condensed and simplified; the reaction classification module classifies a reaction into a category of reactions sharing similar reaction rates; reactions may also be classified in part based on the type of reaction; para [0047], [0053], [0073]);
receive a request for the one or more multiscale models of chemical kinetics ,including one or more requested metadata (a cellular metabolic sub-model 210 with any number of sub-models which input and/or output with other sub-models or the cellular metabolic sub-model; store metadata further specifying the details of the chemical reactions (kinetics) within the reaction network, and store metadata further specifying the details of the chemical reactions (kinetics) within the reaction network; para [0026], [0047] ); and
transmit the input model or a portion thereof in response to the request, based on a match between the one or more requested metadata and the extracted metadata (edges may store metadata further specifying the details of the chemical reactions within the reaction network; provide the reaction classification module uses the set of reaction rates (metadata) to categorize similar (match) reaction rates (extracted metadata) into one of a number of reaction classes; para [0047], [0076]).
Claims 6 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-7. Note that claim 6 contain multi request “first”/”second” which discloses by Casavant.
Regarding claim 8, Casavant further discloses wherein the first input model and the second input model in response to the request are transmitted as a combined multiscale model of chemical kinetics (determining the strain on a cell wall using two models; the use of the long timescale model for a single "test", also referred to as a single "simulation"; multiple simulations can be run using model 410 in series or in parallel using different sets of initial molecules along with the specification of other simulation parameters; Abstract & para [0063]).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casavant et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20220199194 A1 (Hereinafter “Casavant”) in view of MA et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20210162371 A1 (Hereinafter “MA”).
Regarding claim 2, Casavant fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
MA discloses wherein: the scale category is selected from a group of scale categories, the group of scale categories including:
i) an electronic structure calculation category (electronic structure calculations; para [0265]);
ii) multiscale modeling thermochemistry category (model with isotropic thermal parameters: para [0263]); or
iii) a microkinetic modeling category (model with isotropic thermal parameters: electronic structure calculations; para [0263], [0265]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Casavant to include the missing limitations, as taught by MA, for the purpose of providing the development of efficient and effective separation processes.
Claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casavant et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20220199194 A1 (Hereinafter “Casavant”) in view of Redlich et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20090254572A1 (Hereinafter “Redlich”).
Regarding claim 3, Casavant fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
Redlich discloses wherein the input model is stored in an original format (the data stream format is typically preserved intact to allow for workflow processing without abends, interrupts, or crashes; even metadata are typically preserved to retain the original format; para [0702]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Casavant to include the missing limitations, as taught by Redlich, for the purpose of providing the data stream format is typically preserved intact in order to allow for workflow processing without abends, interrupts, or crashes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casavant et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20220199194 A1 (Hereinafter “Casavant”) in view of Cheatham et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20180254109 (Hereinafter “Cheatham”).
Regarding claim 4, Casavant fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
Cheatham discloses wherein testing the input model based on a quality test further comprises:
identifying a calculation type associated with the input model (input models, hierarchical object models that describe hierarchical elements of the reactor core, deterministic models, stochastic (calculation type) models among other types of models that may reflect the operation of the core in multiple dimensions; para [0017]));
running the quality test based on a correspondence to the input model and the identified calculation type (input models, hierarchical object models that describe hierarchical elements of the reactor core, deterministic models, stochastic (calculation type) models among other types of models that may reflect the operation of the core in multiple dimensions; para [0017]); and
reporting an assessment of a result from the quality test (input files, output files, models and reports among other data elements; para [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Casavant to include the missing limitations, as taught by Cheatham, for the purpose of allowing the system to be capable of determining one or more optimal assembly moves.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casavant et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20220199194 A1 (Hereinafter “Casavant”) in view of JANG et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20150142398 (Hereinafter “JANG ”).
Regarding claim 5, Casavant fails to explicitly disclose the limitations below.
JANG discloses wherein:
the one or more multiscale models of chemical kinetics comprise multiscale models of heterogenous catalysis (instructing an energy model for a molecular system; chemically reactive systems and non-adiabatic systems. General areas of application include: heterogenous catalysis; require usage of some input/output device (1130), such as inputting data; para [0020], [0130], [0156]); and the input model of chemical kinetics comprises a model of heterogenous catalysis (Instructing an energy model for a molecular system; chemically reactive systems and non-adiabatic systems; modeling" used herein is a software construct of a molecular system; a model contains numerous variables that characterize the system being studied; general areas of application include: heterogenous catalysis; require usage of some input/output device (1130), such as inputting data; para [0020], [0043], [0130], [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Casavant to include the missing limitations, as taught by JANG, for the purpose of providing subsystems treated with more computationally costly mean-field methods than the other subsystems in the molecular system.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights