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
1. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 element 204. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-6 recite steps or acts including generating a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 7-12 recite a system comprising a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces while the claim 13-18 recite a non-transitory machine-readable information storage medium and therefore are a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1, 7 and 13 recite:
obtaining one or more input physical parameters corresponding to a multi-element alloy structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
classifying the one or more input physical parameters as one of a first element type, or a second element type to obtain at least one of a first set of elements and a second set of elements respectively (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
computing one or more of (i) an embedding energy function, and (ii) an atomic electron density for each input physical parameter of the at least one of the first set of elements and the second set of elements (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
scaling, by using a scaling factor, the one or more of (i) the embedding energy function, and (ii) the atomic electron density, computed for each input physical parameter of the at least one of the first set of elements and the second set of elements, to obtain a set of scaled parameters and an elemental interaction pair potential function (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
identifying one or more dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters based on the set of scaled parameters and the elemental interaction pair potential function (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
sequencing the one or more identified dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters and one or more similar-type pair interaction potential parameters to obtain a sequence of the pair type interaction potential parameters (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
generating a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file based on the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “processor implemented” (Claim 1-6), “A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces” (Claim 7), “system” (Claim 8-12), “one or more hardware processors” (Claim 1, 7-8 and 14), “One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause” (Claim 13), and “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums”(Claim 14-18) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “processor” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any 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.
Further the additional element of “multi-element alloy structure” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “obtaining one or more input physical parameters corresponding to a multi-element alloy structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
generating a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file based on the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting)”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “processor implemented” (Claim 1-6), “A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces” (Claim 7), “system” (Claim 8-12), “one or more hardware processors” (Claim 1, 7-8 and 14), “One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause” (Claim 13), and “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums”(Claim 14-18) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The additional element of “multi-element alloy structure” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “obtaining one or more input physical parameters corresponding to a multi-element alloy structure (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
generating a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file based on the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters (insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting)”.
Further dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 recite:
(Claim 2, 8 and 14) further comprising simulating the MDP file to predict at least one of (i) one or more structural properties, (ii) one or more thermodynamic properties, and (iii) one or more mechanical properties of the multi-element alloy structure (a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
(Claim 3, 9 and 15) wherein the first set of elements and the second set of elements are distinct from each other (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 4, 10 and 16) wherein the first element type and the second element type are one of a body centered cubic (BCC) element type or a face centered cubic (FCC) element type (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and/or field of use).
(Claim 5, 11 and 17) wherein the scaling factor is calculated based on a regression analysis of the atomic electron density at embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values (a mathematical concept and a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
(Claim 6, 12 and 18) wherein the order of the sequence of pair type interaction potential parameters is determined based on a sequence of one or more element types comprised in the one or more input physical parameters (a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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.
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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Misfit-energy-increasing dislocations in vapor-deposited CoFe/NiFe multilayers”), and further in view of Sheng et al. (“Highly optimized embedded-atom-method potentials for fourteen fcc metals”).
As per Claims 1, 7 and 13, Zhou et al. teaches …
obtaining one or more input physical parameters corresponding to a multi-element alloy structure (Table III, “The parameters needed to define the EAM model for these metals are listed in Table III.” on the left column of Pg 9);
classifying the one or more input physical parameters as one of a first element type, or a second element type to obtain at least one of a first set of elements and a second set of elements respectively (Fig.1, “In the figure, the blue, gray, pink, and orange balls represent Ni, Fe, Co, and Cu atoms, respectively…. to distinguish different …different atom species…. Three adjacent (111) monolayers A,B, and C, colored with purple, red, and yellow, respectively,” on the right column of Pg 3;
PNG
media_image1.png
220
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on the left column of Pg 6; “
PNG
media_image2.png
17
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” on the right column of Pg 7 : Examiner Note - alloy EAM uses element labels a, b (different element types) and includes element-specific terms plus cross terms (ab).);
computing one or more of (i) an embedding energy function, and (ii) an atomic electron density for each input physical parameter of the at least one of the first set of elements and the second set of elements (APPENDIX A, Equation (A1)-A(2) “the total energy E… represents the pair energy…and …the embedding energy associated… a local site with an electron density);
…
identifying one or more dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters based on the set of scaled parameters and the elemental interaction pair potential function (APPENDIX A, Equation (A5) “pair potential between different species a and b”: Examiner Note - EAM potential includes cross/dissimilar terms and provides a rule for dissimilar electron density in Equation (A5));
sequencing the one or more identified dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters and one or more similar-type pair interaction potential parameters to obtain a sequence of the pair type interaction potential parameters (APPENDIX A, “pair potentials”; Examiner Note - alloy EAM is organized by element-specific functions (a,a) and cross functions (a,b).); and
generating a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file based on the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters (APPENDIX A, “this potential database has enabled the use of molecular dynamics for the simulation” on the left column of Pg 9).
Zhou et al. fails to teach explicitly a processor implemented method/ system/ One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to comprising:
scaling, by using a scaling factor, the one or more of (i) the embedding energy function, and (ii) the atomic electron density, computed for each input physical parameter of the at least one of the first set of elements and the second set of elements, to obtain a set of scaled parameters and an elemental interaction pair potential function.
Sheng et al. teaches a processor implemented method/ system/ One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions (
PNG
media_image3.png
77
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on the left column of Pg 2) to comprising:
scaling, by using a scaling factor, the one or more of (i) the embedding energy function, and (ii) the atomic electron density, computed for each input physical parameter of the at least one of the first set of elements and the second set of elements, to obtain a set of scaled parameters and an elemental interaction pair potential function (“The DFT data were then used to represent the PES of each element for potential fitting described in Sec. II C. T” on the left column of Pg 2; section C. Potential fitting procedure,
PNG
media_image4.png
233
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on the left column of Pg 3). In particular, Sheng et al. teaches a computational fitting procedure and generate EAM potentials from a potential-energy surface (PES) database, including deforming (scaling) the PES using linear scaling transforms applied to coordinates and energies and then reparametrizing the EAM potential, iterating until scaling parameters converge (equation (2) of section IIC). Sheng applies transforms to the PES to make the EAM-described PES match experimental targets (lattice constants, cohesive energy, liquid density), and explicitly describes a recursive procedure of obtaining each parameter and reparametrizing the EAM potential until convergence (section IIC).
Zhou et al. and Sheng et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for molecular dynamics computer simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Sheng et al. into Zhou et al.’s invention for purpose of molecular dynamics simulations to provide the potentials which are suitable for high-quality atomistic computer simulation of practical applications with an improved accuracy and wide applicability (Sheng et al.: Abstract).
As per Claims 2, 8 and 14, Zhou et al. fails to teach explicitly further comprising simulating the MDP file to predict at least one of (i) one or more structural properties, (ii) one or more thermodynamic properties, and (iii) one or more mechanical properties of the multi-element alloy structure.
Sheng et al. teaches further comprising simulating the MDP file to predict at least one of (i) one or more structural properties, (ii) one or more thermodynamic properties, and (iii) one or more mechanical properties of the multi-element alloy structure (
PNG
media_image3.png
77
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on the left column of Pg 2, section II. “molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed to simulate the melting process of the fcc structure of each element at different number densities…. to simulate the liquid dynamics of the elements….. to simulate the melting process of each metal.”; “MD simulation of fcc Au shows its thermal behavior upon heating up to the melting temperature. Compared with experimental observations, it is found that MD simulation predicts correct thermal-expansion behavior of Au” on the left column of Pg 9).
As per Claims 3, 9 and 15, Zhou et al. teaches wherein the first set of elements and the second set of elements are distinct from each other (“
PNG
media_image2.png
17
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” on the right column of Pg 7: Examiner Note - alloy formulation distinguishes a and b element types and includes a≠b cross terms (ab).).
As per Claims 4, 10 and 16, Zhou et al. teaches wherein the first element type and the second element type are one of a body centered cubic (BCC) element type or a face centered cubic (FCC) element type (“perfect fcc structure with an ABCABC... (111) stacking sequence… local fcc (ABCABC) stacking sequence local fcc (ABCABC) stacking sequence” on the left column of Pg 6; “
PNG
media_image2.png
17
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” on the right column of Pg 7).
As per Claims 6, 12 and 18, Zhou et al. teaches explicitly wherein the order of the sequence of pair type interaction potential parameters is determined based on a sequence of one or more element types comprised in the one or more input physical parameters (APPENDIX A, “pair potentials”; Examiner Note - alloy terms are organized by element labels and cross terms (a,a vs a,b) and provides cross-term construction.).
5. Claims 5, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Misfit-energy-increasing dislocations in vapor-deposited CoFe/NiFe multilayers”), in view of Sheng et al. (“Highly optimized embedded-atom-method potentials for fourteen fcc metals”), and further in view of Bhattarai et al. (“Polarizable potentials for metals: The density readjusting embedded atom method (DR-EAM)”).
Zhou et al. as modified by Sheng et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 above.
As per Claims 5, 11 and 17, Zhou et al. as modified by Sheng et al. teaches the scaling factor is calculated (Sheng et al.: The DFT data were then used to represent the PES of each element for potential fitting described in Sec. II C. T” on the left column of Pg 2; section C. Potential fitting procedure)
Zhou et al. as modified by Sheng et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein … based on a regression analysis of the atomic electron density at embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values.
Bhattarai et al. teaches wherein… based on … analysis of the atomic electron density at embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values (left column of Pg 5). In particular, Bhattarai et al. enforcing equilibrium-electron-density-related constraints via transformation of the embedding and pair functions (e.g., zero slope at equilibrium electron density) (left column of Pg 5), which necessarily entails determining transformation/scaling parameters to satisfy target conditions.
Zhou et al., Sheng et al. and Bhattarai et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for molecular dynamics computer simulation.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Bhattarai et al. into Zhou et al. and Sheng et al.’s invention for purpose of molecular dynamics simulations to provide the potentials which are suitable for high-quality atomistic computer simulation of practical applications with an improved accuracy and wide applicability (Sheng et al.: Abstract) and to provide accurate behavior in simulation (Bhattarai et al.: Instruction).
Further, Zhou et al. as modified by Sheng et al. and Bhattarai et al. fails to teach explicitly a regression analysis. But Bhattarai et al. describes the use of fitting a linear transformation/relationship to the scale (“linear transformations between the Mulliken electronegativity and the Pauling electronegativity scale [73],… we begin with the Pauling-Allred scale [74], which is derived from thermodynamic data, and fit a linear relationship to the Mulliken scale (in eV) for all metals that have well-characterized electron affinity values.” on the left column of Pg 3).
Using regression analysis (i. e. linear transformations) as a known fitting tool to determine such scaling factors from target data/constraints would have been a predictable, routine optimization technique within ordinary skill, consistent with the flexible KSR approach allowing “obvious to try” from finite predictable solutions and combining known methods to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Argibay et al. (US 10763000 B1)
Brommer et al. ("Potfit: effective potentials from ab initio data").
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188