METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SEARCHING NEW MATERIAL

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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the claims filed on May/20/2026. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered. Response to Argument In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: Applicants’ Argument: Claim 1 explicitly recites a potential variable which is an "unobserved variable representing an unobserved potential fact". Because this variable is, by definition, unobserved, the human mind is not equipped to "observe, evaluate, or judge" it. Furthermore, the claim recites "calculating a probability function... by marginalizing the unobserved potential variable from the energy function". The human mind cannot practically marginalize unobserved latent variables across material feature vectors to reduce probability distribution. These processes require machine- executed algorithms and are physically impossible to perform mentally. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument since the applicant’s argument regarding “the human mind cannot practically marginalize unobserved latent variables across material feature vectors to deduce a probability distribution.” This is not persuasive, since this argument regarding the newly amended limitation, which was not rejected under a mental process in a previous rejection. However, the current claim amendment is still not overcome the 101 rejection, since the claim recite: “calculating a probability function of the material model by marginalizing the unobserved potential variable from the energy function” this is an abstract idea, as it’s a mathematical concept. Applicant’s Argument: In response to the Examiner statement on pages 6-9 regarding Step 2A Analysis, Applicant respectfully notes that the Examiner should consider the claim as a whole when performing the Step 2A analysis under MPEP 2106.04 (II). Applicant respectfully notes that claim 1 as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution to a technical problem inherent in conventional material simulations. High throughput screening (HTS) uses specific technical means to improve the field of materials discovery, a recognized technological field. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument since each and every limitation of claim 1 was analyzed, therefore, the claim was considered as the whole. However, the claim as a whole does not recite an improvement of the machine learning model nor an improvement of functioning of the computer in the technology field, for example, the claim recites a generic computer component (applying the machine model) to implement the mental process (to discover or determine a particular material to be used based on the physical property). As claim 1 is analyzed below: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“determining a candidate material by inputting the targeted physical property to a result of the machine learning” this a mental process, the human mind can determine the candidate material based on the result of the machine learning learn on the target physical property, for example, the builder can design to build the wall of the house based on the concrete material or the installation at the location has the tropical weather, wherein, particular location that has the tropical weather is classified as the result of the machine learning (observation/Evaluation). -“and determining the material having the targeted physical property from the candidate material” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine material having the targeted physical property from the candidate material, for example, the builder can determine the concrete material based on the location has a tropical weather (observation/Evaluation). “calculating a probability function of the material model by marginalizing the unobserved potential variable from the energy function” this is an abstract idea, as it’s a mathematical concept. Under Step 2A: prong 2 and 2B analysis: The claim recites additional limitations which are not integrated the judicial exception into the practical application, such as the claim does not recites any improvement of the machine learning model nor an improvement of functioning of computer in the technology field., such as “A method for searching a material having a targeted physical property using a high-throughput screening,” , “performing a machine learning on a material model which is modeled based on a known material”, “wherein the performing the learning on the material model comprises: generating sample materials using the material model based upon an energy function” “and updating the learning parameter of the energy function using the sample materials corresponding to the first structure information and first physical property information based on the probability function” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). - “an energy function defined by learning parameter to link first structure information, which is information on a structure of the known material, first physical property information, which is information on a physical property of the known material, information on a potential factor, and a potential variable which is an unobserved variable representing an unobserved potential fact”, “wherein the learning parameter comprises at least one of a default value parameter on the structure of the known material, a default value parameter on the physical property of the known material, a default value parameter of the potential factor, a relationship parameter between the structure of the known material and the potential factor, and a relationship parameter between the physical property of the known material and the potential factor.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained. Applicant’s Argument: Applicant respectfully notes that the claimed invention is directed to an improvement to conventional material simulation techniques. Conventional HTS is limited because virtual materials increase exponentially, making simulation ineffective. The claimed invention provides a specific machine learning architecture that generates sample materials via an energy function and marginalizes unobserved variables to deduce a probability function. Specifically, this specific architectural configuration directly improves the operational functioning of the HTS system by reducing computational complexity (thereby minimizing active computer simulation time and hardware memory utilization) while simultaneously increasing simulation accuracy and reliability to elevate the overall technical output quality of the screening apparatus. Examiner’s Response: Furthermore, the applicant’s argument regarding the “the claimed invention provides a specific machine learning architecture that generates sample materials via an energy function and marginalizes unobserved variables to deduce a probability function. Specifically, this specific architectural configuration directly improves the operational functioning of the HTS system by reducing computational complexity (thereby minimizing active computer simulation time and hardware memory utilization) while simultaneously increasing simulation accuracy and reliability to elevate the overall technical output quality of the screening apparatus.”. The applicant’s argument does not reflect the claim limitations. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the 101 rejection is still maintained. Applicants’ Argument: Furthermore, Applicant respectfully notes that the specific machine learning architecture (e.g., using an energy function to link structure, physical properties, and an unobserved potential variable) is not known in the field. The claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea because the limitation directed to the improved computational marginalization noted above is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. The combination of elements confines the claim to a particular useful application of searching materials using an inverse search mode. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument because applicant’s argument does not reflect to a current claim limitation, as the claim does not recite the specific machine learning architecture, the claim only recites the abstract ideas (mental process and mathematical concept) are implemented by the machine learning model. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained. Applicants’ Argument: Moreover, the Examiner's reliance on Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) to support an unpatentability position is misplaced. In Diehr, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly reversed the USPTO's rejection, holding that a claim drawn to an otherwise statutory technological process does not lose its patent eligibility simply because it incorporates a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. The Supreme Court emphasized that claims must be considered "as a whole" rather than being dissected into isolated mathematical components. Id. at 192. Here, exactly as in Diehr, the claimed invention does not seek to patent an abstract mathematical concept in a vacuum; rather, it integrates an advanced mathematical and machine learning model into a comprehensive technological process to improve a core step of material discovery. By achieving a dramatic improvement in the speed and predictive reliability of computer simulations, the claimed invention provides a substantial technological contribution that effectively optimizes and replaces slow, resource-intensive physical experiments. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because the claim limitation as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception in to the practical application. Determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. However, the current claim limitations amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.Tthe current claim limitations do not intergrade the judicial exception into the particular application. Therefore, the claim is not eligible. 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 analysis: In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (claims 1-11), device (claim 12-22). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A analysis: Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. Claim 1 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“determining a candidate material by inputting the targeted physical property to a result of the machine learning” this a mental process, the human mind can determine the candidate material based on the result of the machine learning learn on the target physical property, for example, the builder can design to built the wall of the house based on the concrete material or the installation at the location has the tropical weather, wherein, particular location that has the tropical weather is classified as the result of the machine learning (observation/Evaluation). -“and determining the material having the targeted physical property from the candidate material” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine material having the targeted physical property from the candidate material, for example, the builder can determine the concrete material based on the location has a tropical weather (observation/Evaluation). “calculating a probability function of the material model by marginalizing the unobserved potential variable from the energy function” this is an abstract idea, as it’s a mathematical concept. a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: “A method for searching a material having a targeted physical property using a high-throughput screening,” , “performing a machine learning on a material model which is modeled based on a known material”, “wherein the performing the learning on the material model comprises: generating sample materials using the material model based upon an energy function” “and updating the learning parameter of the energy function using the sample materials corresponding to the first structure information and first physical property information based on the probability function” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). - “an energy function defined by learning parameter to link first structure information, which is information on a structure of the known material, first physical property information, which is information on a physical property of the known material, information on a potential factor, and a potential variable which is an unobserved variable representing an unobserved potential fact”, “wherein the learning parameter comprises at least one of a default value parameter on the structure of the known material, a default value parameter on the physical property of the known material, a default value parameter of the potential factor, a relationship parameter between the structure of the known material and the potential factor, and a relationship parameter between the physical property of the known material and the potential factor.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: “A method for searching a material having a targeted physical property using a high-throughput screening,” , “performing a machine learning on a material model which is modeled based on a known material”, “wherein the performing the learning on the material model comprises: generating sample materials using the material model based upon an energy function” “and updating the learning parameter of the energy function using the sample materials corresponding to the first structure information and first physical property information based on the probability function” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). - “an energy function defined by learning parameter to link first structure information, which is information on a structure of the known material, first physical property information, which is information on a physical property of the known material, information on a potential factor, and a potential variable which is an unobserved variable representing an unobserved potential fact”, “wherein the learning parameter comprises at least one of a default value parameter on the structure of the known material, a default value parameter on the physical property of the known material, a default value parameter of the potential factor, a relationship parameter between the structure of the known material and the potential factor, and a relationship parameter between the physical property of the known material and the potential factor.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. claim 2 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“and determining whether to finish the learning based on an update result of the learning parameter." This is a mental process, the human mind can determine when to finish the learning based on the result of updated parameter, (Observation/Evaluation). a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: - “wherein the performing the learning on the material model comprises:” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). b) Step 2B analysis: - “wherein the performing the learning on the material model comprises:” This/these limitations is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 3 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“wherein the first structure information comprises information on a partial structure in a molecular structure of the known material” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“wherein the first structure information comprises information on a partial structure in a molecular structure of the known material” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 4 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ wherein the first structure information comprises information on atoms in the molecular structure of the known material and information on a combination of the atoms.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ wherein the first structure information comprises information on atoms in the molecular structure of the known material and information on a combination of the atoms.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 5 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ wherein the first structure information comprises two-dimensional image information on the molecular structure of the known material.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ wherein the first structure information comprises two-dimensional image information on the molecular structure of the known material.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 6 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“ resetting the learning parameter with a random value before the machine learning.” This is a mental process; the human mind can reset the learning material with a random value before the learning (Observation/Evaluation). a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: - “wherein the performing the machine learning on the material model further includes” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). b) Step 2B analysis: - “wherein the performing the machine learning on the material model further includes” This/these limitation is/are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 7 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“ generating sample materials using the material model” this is a mental process, the human mind can generate the sample material, (Observation/Evaluation) -“ and generating second structure information… and second physical property information,…based on the probability function of the material model.” this is a mental process involves a math function, the human mind can generate the second structure information and the second property information based on the probability function, (Observation/Evaluation). a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ second structure information, which is information on a structure of the material having the targeted physical property, and second physical property information, which is information on a physical property of the material having the targeted physical property” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ second structure information, which is information on a structure of the material having the targeted physical property, and second physical property information, which is information on a physical property of the material having the targeted physical property” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 8 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“wherein the updating the learning parameter comprises: updating the learning parameter based on a free energy function of the material model deduced based on the probability function and the energy function.” This is a mental process involve a math function, the human mind can update the parameter based on the energy function and the probability function, (Observation/Evaluation) and (mathematical concept). Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“ wherein the updating the learning parameter based on the probability function and the free energy function comprises: updating the learning parameter by using a difference between the learning parameter and an objective function expressed as the free energy function.” This is a mental process involves a math function, the human mind can update the parameter based on the difference between the learning parameter and objective function, (Evaluation) and (mathematical concept). Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“ wherein the objective function represents a function deduced from a differential expression of the probability function” this relates to a math function (mathematical concept). Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“ wherein the determining the material having the targeted physical property among the candidate material comprises: verifying at least one of physical validity, and chemical stability the candidate material;” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the material having the target physical property among the candidate material, and verify the physical validity and chemical stability (Observation/Evaluation). “ and determining the verified candidate material from the candidate material to be the material having the targeted physical property.” This is a mental process, the human mind can determine the verified candidate material to the advanced material having the targeted physical property, (Observation/Evaluation) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis and Step 2B analysis No additional element that provides a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 9, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as claim 10, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as claim 11, since these claims recite the same limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EM N TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-5747. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00-5:00. 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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached on (571) 272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2128 /OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128