DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions.
Pro se filing
The Office recognizes that level of experience with US patent practice may affect protection of inventions disclosed in an application. Nonetheless, an applicant may prosecute an application without the services of a registered patent attorney or agent (i.e. pro se filing including guidance on locating an attorney or agent -- MPEP 401 and the USPTO "Pro Se Assistance Program" at www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program). As time allows, the examiner and the Office may provide or reference guidance in addition to that normally provided during examination.
Also, an interview may be requested for clarification and discussion of the issues in this action. The examiner's contact information appears at the end of this communication.
Status of claims
Canceled:
none
Pending:
1-20
Withdrawn:
none
Examined:
1-20
Independent:
1, 10 and 17
Allowable:
none
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
x
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
x
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
x
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 7/7/2025 filing receipt, this application was filed 4/29/2025, and there is no claim to earlier priority.
Objections to the specification and drawings regarding sequence disclosure
The specification and drawings are objected to because they contain sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR §§ 1.821-1.825 for the following reason(s):
Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appear in the original specification at [26-27] and in the drawings at FIGs. 1, 2 (elements 210 and 280), 3 (elements 325 and 380), 4 (element 410), etc., but applicants have not submitted a Sequence Listing as set forth in 37 CFR § 1.821 (see MPEP § 2422).
Sequences of 10 or more nucleotides and 4 or more amino acids must be identified by sequence identification number, and a listing including the sequences must be supplied.
It can be convenient to identify sequences in figures by, optionally, amending the Brief Description of the Drawings section (see MPEP 2422.02) as an alternative to amending the drawings. Also, as another alternative, if the sequences are deleted, then they would not count toward the 37 CFR §§ 1.821-1.825 requirements.
Applicants are required to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. Any response to this action which fails to meet these requirements will be non-responsive. The nature of the sequences disclosed in the instant application has allowed an examination on the merits, as follows.
Regarding drawings, MPEP 608.02(b).I and generally 608 pertain. Any replacement drawing sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If filing electronically, then possibly higher resolution drawings should be filed as "Supplemental Content."
Claim objections
Claims 1, 8-10, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
The following issues are objected to:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
1, 8, 10, 16, 18
1. A method, comprising:
a. receiving...
i. wherein...
Each claim... ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. (MPEP 608.01(m)).
The identified claims are objected to because they use periods in conjunction with enumeration to designate and punctuate elements or steps.
As one example for overcoming this objection, each period punctuating enumeration may be replaced with one or two parentheses adjacent the enumeration.
8
random-sampling based
Grammatically, should read "random-sampling-based"
9
...; the input...
A semi-colon should not separate a conditional clause from the clause it controls. Probably this semi-colon should be a comma.
10
ii. ...loss function;
This semi-colon is inconsistent and probably should be a comma.
18
An apparatus, comprising: a processor and an associated memory...
Since "a processor" and "an associated memory" follow the colon, then probably no colon, no punctuation is appropriate.
Claim rejections - 112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
1, 8, 10, 16, 18
a. ...:
i. ... : ...,
ii. ... ;
In claim 1, in the "a. receiving..." step, the first sub-list elements i-ii lack a grammatical conjunction, e.g. "and," between the list elements. Thus, the logical relationship is unclear between the list elements, e.g. as "and" vs. "or." This rejection might be overcome, for example, by amending "and" between list elements i and ii.
The same issue also occurs in step "b. using..." among its first sub-list elements i-iii.
The same issue also occurs among the main "method" claim steps a-c, there being no grammatical conjunction recited before step c.
The same issue occurs in claims 8, 10, 16 and 18.
1, 10, 18
a. ...
i. wherein the respective modalities...
The recited "the... modalities..." requires but lacks clear antecedent.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected similarly.
1, 10, 18
b. ...
i. ... wherein the response also
consists of one or more of the modalities
In US patent practice, the recited "consists of" is a term of art meaning the following and no more. Thus, the use of "also" is unclear, and the recitation appears to exclude the "response" including any type of "response" information beyond the "modalities." Possibly, instead of "also consists," "comprises" should be recited.
Claim 10 is rejected similarly.
1, 7, 10, 18
c. ...
an input query
The relationship is unclear between this "input query" and the previously recited "a query" (step b.i).
Also, the relationship should be clarified between the instances of "input" in claim 1 vs. claim 7.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected similarly.
3
...the protein structure modality.
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent.
6, 14
the final output
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent.
Claim 14 is rejected similarly.
7, 15
the generated output
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent, noting that in the claim 1 "c. using to generate" step, "output" is recited as an adjective modifying the noun "protein." The other two instances of "output" in claim 1 are not associated with the verb "generate."
Claim 15 is rejected similarly.
8, 16
for generating a representation of a peptide ligand of a
target receptor
The relationships are unclear between these elements recited here as newly instantiated vs. the similar elements in claim 7. Possibly each element here should use the grammatical article "the" instead of "a."
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
8, 16
a. ...the output
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent at least because there are multiple different instances of "output" in the preceding claims.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
8
an effective peptide ligand
The recited "effective" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification ([5, 9, 17]) nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.)
The same issue occurs again in claim 8 at "e. selecting the most effective ligand...," noting that while claim 8 does recite "d. ...efficacy," it also recites "interaction" and "properties."
Claim 16 is rejected similarly regarding two instances of reciting "effective."
8, 16
a. ...the output probability
distribution of the active head
Each instance of "the" requires but lacks clear antecedent.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
8, 16
a. ...each iteration of the auto regression
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent at least because there is no preceding recitation of either "iteration" or "autoregression," notwithstanding preceding recitations of "autoregressive" (claim 5).
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
8, 16
c. ...the same input query
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent. Possibly: "the input query" or "a same input query"
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
8, 16
f. ...the ligand
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent at least because there are various preceding instances of "ligand" among claims 7-8.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
9, 17
...each of the modalities on this list: (a) natural language, (b) protein sequence, and (c) protein structure
The relationship is unclear between the list of modalities in this claim 9 recitation vs. the list at step a.i.1-2 of claim 1. If they are the same lists, then it is unclear why enumeration changes from numbers in claim 1 to letters in claim 9. Whether they are the same or different lists, it is unclear why "protein structure" occurs in claim 8 but not claim 1. Also, it is unclear how to interpret the recited "this," e.g. as to whether it also refers to the list of claim 1. If it does not, then "this list" probably should read "a list."
Claim 17 is rejected similarly.
9, 17
the input embedding...
The recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly.
18
An apparatus, comprising: a processor... wherein the memory stores instructions that... cause...
Claim 18 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here an "apparatus," cannot directly recite a process step such as "cause." MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains. It may suffice to add "configured to" before the process step so as properly focus on claimed structure. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process.
18
b. ...
ii. a single heads
Grammatical inconsistency: "single" vs. "heads"
Claim rejections - 112/a
The following is a quotation of 112/a:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Regarding issues of written description support stemming even from the original claims and original disclosure, MPEP 2161.01.I (e.g. 6th para.), 2163.I and 2163.I.A pertain: "[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed" (MPEP 2161.01.I,6th para.).
Written description
Claims 2, 8-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 112/a as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to PHOSITA that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted. With regard to any suggested amendment(s) below to overcome a rejection, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
Claim 18 recites "An apparatus..." and "d. synthesize the ligand." The specification discloses "...can be synthesized..." ([10 and 107]) and "...for synthesis..." ([13, 19-24, 35 and 107]), but the specification does not detail how to perform said synthesis.
For PHOSITA-performed synthesis, it may be assumed that PHOSITA would have had knowledge to perform the synthesis. However, for computationally-implemented, automated synthesis, it is not clear that PHOSITA would have had knowledge to implement the required software and hardware.
Claim 18 reads on computationally-implemented, automated synthesis embodiments and so is rejected here.
For reference regarding the complexity of the task, Gao (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) teaches the complexity of synthesizing computer generated models of molecules (abstract).
Claims 2 and 11 each read on both computationally-implemented, automated synthesis (or "manufacturing" for claim 11) embodiments as well as PHOSITA-performed synthesis (or "manufacturing") embodiments, and so claims 2 and 11 are rejected here in view of the computationally-implemented, automated synthesis (or "manufacturing") embodiments within their claim scope.
MPEP 2161.01.I "Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description For A Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation" also pertains.
Dependent claims similarly lack support.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by narrowing to clearly supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations.
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure.
MPEP 2163 generally pertains.
No prior art has been applied to the following claims
No prior art is applied to claims 1-20. Close art, for example Wei (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) and Zhou (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892), while addressing language models (Wei) and protein modeling (Zhou), does not teach the instant combination of multi-head neural network applied to both primary structure (i.e. sequence) information and other protein features described in natural language, and it is not clear that any combinable art of record would have rendered the claims obvious.
101 analysis of judicial exceptions (JEs) to patentability
35 USC 101 reads:
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.
For each rejection below, dependent claims are rejected similarly as not remedying the rejection, unless otherwise noted.
Claims not rejected and therefore patent eligible
Referring to 101 JE analysis as organized in MPEP 2106, no 101 rejection applies to claims 2, 8-9 and 11-20, at least by analogy to:
the analysis Step 2A, 2nd prong, 4th consideration relating to a transformation integrating possible judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(c)), the transformation in this instance comprising at least the recited synthesizing or manufacturing.
Claims rejected
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. After consideration of relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, each claim is directed to one or more JEs (i.e. an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, a law of nature and/or a product of nature), as identified below. Any elements or combination of elements beyond the JE(s) (i.e. "additional elements") are conventional and do not constitute significantly more than the JE(s). Thus, no claim includes additional elements amounting to significantly more than the JE(s), as explained below.
In Alice, citing Mayo and Bilski, two Mayo/Alice questions determine eligibility under 101: First, is a claim directed to a JE? And second, if so, does the claim recite significantly more than the JE?
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (1st & 2nd prongs) and 2B as follows below.
MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.03
[Step 1: claims 1-20: YES]
Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- abstract idea -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04
Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 1 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of computing a protein representation including the JE elements of "a. receiving...," "b. using..." and "c. using...," each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below.
Claim 10 is analyzed similarly.
BRIs of the claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process, at least equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Synopsys and Electric Power Group). In a BRI, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process.
BRIs of the claims also are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept, including mathematical relationships and calculations, as found in the following case law, as cited and discussed above: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) and/or obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Ambry and Myriad CAFC) and/or execution of an algorithm to implement mathematical relationships and/or formulas, including image processing (e.g. TLI, Digitech, Benson, Flook, Diehr, FuzzySharp, In re Grams and In re Abele all as cited in MPEP 2106).
Instantly recited examples of math concepts include the math relationships inherent in and descriptive of the recited neural network, as well as relationships inherent in recitations as the only supported embodiments.
The preceding case law examples are cited for the basic form of their identified abstract ideas, and analogy to these example abstract ideas need not be within the same technology field, 101 analysis generally being assumed to be neutral with respect to technology field.
Regarding inherency of abstract ideas, MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 includes: "the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 'described' the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words 'intermediated' or 'settlement'" (emphasis added, p. 1). Similarly, inherency can effectively be recitation, as in, for example, "By claiming simply 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate' with no reference to how it was produced, SKB effectively claimed 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate whether non-naturally occurring or arising through natural conversion.' Claim 1, as issued, therefore combines patentable and unpatentable subject matter, and is invalid under Section 101." (capitalization added, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 365 F.3d 1306, 1321-33, Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the instant type of data processing claims, the specification is not merely adding background explanation as to how a claimed process works, e.g. a physical process based on, involving or further explained by abstract ideas and natural laws. Rather, the specification is detailing the only disclosed way that a programmer may proceed from the recited inputs to the recited outputs, e.g. through actual performance of the disclosed judicial exceptions (JEs).
Regarding the "Meaning of 'Recites,'" MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 states:
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
While the "set forth" language approximates explicit recitation, it also is fundamental that all recitation must be interpreted and that to be patent eligible a claim must satisfy 101 according to its properly interpreted scope, e.g. for all embodiments on which the claim reads, e.g. according to any inherency pertinent to a given claim and disclosure accompanying that claim, i.e. consistent with the "described" meaning of "recites" as in the MPEP. Thus, within a BRI, the identified abstract idea elements read on one or more embodiments which only involve manipulation of data. It is not clear than any improvement argument clearly on the record causes a claim not to be directed to a JE for all embodiments within the scope of the claim.
As in Alice (at 306, as cited in the MPEP above) and Bilski (as cited in Alice, id), an abstract idea may comprise multiple abstract elements or steps (i.e. from Alice: "a series of steps" at 306) and need not be a single equation, relationship or principle.
It is not clear that the identified elements must represent other than an abstract idea according to any relevant analysis or case law.
[Step 2A, 1st prong, abstract idea: claims 1 and 10: YES]
Step 2A, 2nd prong: If the claims recite a judicial exception under the 1st prong, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04(d)
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, 1st prong above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, 2nd prong, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, 2nd prong considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: [13 and 17]).
[Step 2A, 2nd prong: claims 1 and 10: NO]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements in addition to the identified JEs? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.05
Addressing the second Mayo/Alice question, all elements of claims 1 and 10 are part of one or more identified JEs (as described above), except for elements identified here as conventional elements in addition to the above judicial exceptions:
The recited "receiving" are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering elements, as exemplified in MPEP 2106.05(d).II and 2106.05(f-g).
[Step 2B: claims 1 and 10: NO]
Summary and conclusion regarding claims 1 and 10
Summing up the above analysis of claims 1 and 10, each viewed as a whole and considering all elements individually and in combination, no claim recites limitations that transform the claim, finally interpreted as directed to the identified JE(s), into patent eligible subject matter, and it is not clear that any claim is sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim.
Remaining claims
Claims 3-7 add elements which also are part of the identified JEs for the same reasons described above regarding the independent claims and therefore do not provide the something significantly more necessary to satisfy 101.
None of dependent claims 3-7 elements provides the something significantly more than the identified JE(s) necessary to satisfy 101.
Nonstatutory double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine to prevent the improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of the same invention (MPEP 804.II.B, 1st para.). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims (instant v. reference) are not identical, but an examined-application claim (instant claim) is not patentably distinct from a reference claim because the instant claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (MPEP 804.II.B, 2nd para.).
In cases of double patenting rejections versus reference claims of pending applications, as opposed to claims of an issued patent, the rejections are provisional because the reference claims have not been patented. Presently, no rejections are provisional.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the application or patent of the reference claim either is shown to be commonly owned with the instant application or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must comply fully with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Applicant may wish to consider electronically filing a terminal disclaimer (MPEP 1490.V pertains, along with https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer). Electronic filing may lead to faster approval of the disclaimer. Also, if filing electronically, Applicant is encouraged to notify the examiner by telephone so that examination may resume more quickly.
Double patenting rejections of instant claims 1-20
Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over one or more claims in reference application 19218291 in view of Wei (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) and Zhou (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892).
Although the reference claims are not identical to the instant claims, in a BRI they also are not patentably distinct from the instant claims: either (i) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims.
It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art. That is, to the extent that any instant claims are narrower than reference claims, then any such narrowing would have been obvious over the cited art.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well.
Examiner comment
Applicant is encouraged to request an interview for clarification or discussion regarding the rejection(s). The examiner's phone number is provided below.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686