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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “a presenter configured to present the candidate for the structure of the thin film output by the inverse analyzer” without “period” at the end of the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8 recites “input data acquisition device”, “a candidate data generator”, “inverse analyzer”, “presenter”.
Claim 9 recites “first extractor” and “second extractor”.
Claim 10 recites “first learning data generator”
Claim 11 recites “first learning processor” and “second learning processor”.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig 1 and 2 [0078-0081].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-15 and 21-25 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.
Claim 8 recites “output a plurality of candidates for a function provided by the verification target material, and generate candidate data;”, “an inverse analyzer configured to select a material that provides the function of the thin film included in the input data from the plurality of candidates for the function included in the candidate data,…” and “output a candidate for structure of the thin film; and a presenter configured to present the candidate for the structure of the thin film output by the inverse analyzer”.
Claim 8 recites “an input data acquisition device configured to acquire input data including a material of a base forming a thin film and a function of the thin film; a candidate data generator configured to provide a preset verification target material as an input to a first learning model in which a relationship between an individual one of a plurality of materials used for forming a thin film and a function provided by the material is previously learned, perform an operation of the first learning model, output a plurality of candidates for a function provided by the verification target material, and generate candidate data; an inverse analyzer configured to select a material that provides the function of the thin film included in the input data from the plurality of candidates for the function included in the candidate data, provide the material of the base included in the input data and the selected material as inputs to a second learning model in which compatibility with the base forming the thin film is previously acquired by learning, …”
Multiple “candidates”, “function” and “material” are recited in the limitations, it is unclear of the connection among these terms. Clarifications are needed. Similar issues are seen in independent claims 12 and 21.
Therefore, the independent claims have an indefinite scope. Since dependent claims are dependent on the independent claims and included all the limitations of the independent claims, thus, the dependent claims recite the indefinite scope in the independent claims.
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 8-15, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 8,
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed tomachine.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 8 recites
an input data acquisition device configured to acquire input data including a material of a base forming a thin film and a function of the thin film; (collect input)
a candidate data generator configured to provide a preset verification target material as an input to a first learning model in which a relationship between an individual one of a plurality of materials used for forming a thin film and a function provided by the material is previously learned, (input and data description)
perform an operation of the first learning model, output a plurality of candidates for a function provided by the verification target material, and generate candidate data; (mere instructions to apply an exception)
an inverse analyzer configured to select a material that provides the function of the thin film included in the input data from the plurality of candidates for the function included in the candidate data, provide the material of the base included in the input data and the selected material as inputs to a second learning model in which compatibility with the base forming the thin film is previously acquired by learning, (mental process)
perform an operation of the second learning model, and output a candidate for structure of the thin film; (mere instructions to apply an exception)
and a presenter configured to present the candidate for the structure of the thin film output by the inverse analyzer. (output data)
(insignificant activity)
The claimed concept is a method of evaluating material that is used for thin film based on function directed to “Mental Process” grouping. Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The collecting data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting input for use in the evaluation step) and amounts to mere data collecting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The present / output step of a model is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data) and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Recitations of “perform an operation of the first learning model, output a plurality of candidates for a function provided by the verification target material, and generate candidate data” and “perform an operation of the second learning model, and output a candidate for structure of the thin film” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f) (1) and (3). For example, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
The claim did not recite additional elements. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See applicant’s specification Fig 1 and 2, [0042-0043], [0052-0054] for generic computer description.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two applies here in 2B. That is, simply using a conventional machine (i.e. input data acquisition device) to collect data. The present claim does not recite any limitation that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 8. See below.
9. (Previously presented) The materials development support apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising:
a first extractor configured to extract a plurality of preset function names indicating the function of the thin film from an individual one of a plurality of document data; (mental process)
and a second extractor configured to extract a plurality of preset material names indicating the material used for forming the thin film from an individual one of a plurality of document data. (mental process)
10. (Previously presented) The materials development support apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
a first learning data generator configured to generate first learning data in which a material and a function provided by the material are associated with each other for each of the plurality of material names, based on the plurality of function names extracted by the first extractor and the plurality of material names extracted by the second extractor;
(mental process)
and a second learning data generator configured to generate second learning data in which the individual material indicated by the plurality of material names and compatibility with the base forming the thin film are associated with each other, based on the plurality of function names extracted by the first extractor, the plurality of material names extracted by the second extractor, and extraction-source document data. (mental process)
11. The materials development support apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising:
a first learning processor configured to train a preset first machine learning model by using the first learning data and construct the first learning model in which a relationship between a material and a function provided by the material is learned; (mere instructions to apply an exception)
a second learning processor configured to train a preset second machine learning model by using the second learning data and construct the second learning model in which compatibility with the base forming the thin film is acquired by learning;
a first learning model storage device configured to store the trained first learning model; and a second learning model storage device configured to store the trained second learning model. (mere instructions to apply an exception)
Same conclusion for independent claims 12, 21 and dependent claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claims 8-15, 21-25 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15, 21-25 are objected but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Suzuki et al (US 20200349451 A1) teaches a physical property prediction method that allows anyone to predict a physical property of an organic compound easily and accurately. This physical property prediction method including the step of learning a correlation between a molecular structure and a physical property of an organic compound and the step of predicting the target physical property value from the molecular structure of an object substance, and a physical property prediction system.
Qi et al (US 20110270604 A1) teaches a method for performing relation extraction in text by applying a convolution strategy to determine a kernel between sentences; applying one or more semi-supervised strategies to the kernel to encode syntactic and semantic information to recover a relational pattern of interest (e.g. similarity); and applying a classifier to the kernel to identify the relational pattern of interest in the text in response to a query.
Kim (US 20030225751 A1) teaches an information searching method, it is first determined if an input retrieval word is a sentence composed of a plurality of words. A functioning code is assigned to each word of the sentence according to its function in the sentence, and then the words are coded in basic words. Then, a database in which information is composed of a sentence having a plurality of words each of which is assigned with a functioning code and coded in a basic word is retrieved on the basis of the coded retrieval word to search information having function codes and word codes identical to those of each word of the retrieval word.
These references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record fail to disclose limitations, including:
Claims 8, 12 and 21:
an inverse analyzer configured to select a material that provides the function of the thin film included in the input data from the plurality of candidates for the function included in the candidate data, provide the material of the base included in the input data and the selected material as inputs to a second learning model in which compatibility with the base forming the thin film is previously acquired by learning, perform an operation of the second learning model, and output a candidate for structure of the thin film;
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUEN-MEEI GAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/CHUEN-MEEI GAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189