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. The amendment filed on 04/16/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1,5, 7, 11, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claims 1, 7, and 13, they recite limitation “Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations available in literature” which is unclear what the limitation refers. It is interpreted any Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations. Further Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite limitation “simulating, …, the MDP file…” which is unclear what the limitation refers. It is interpreted as simulating using the MDP file…”.
As per Claim 5, 11 and 17, they recite the limitation “linearly and proportionately dependent on each other” which is unclear what the limitation “each other” refers.
As per Claim 13, it recites the limitation “simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, the MDP file” which would be better as “simulate the MDP file”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claim 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, 7, and 13, they recite the limitation “that is merged from both the BCC element type framework and the FCC element type framework.” In the simulation step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a “framework” in these claims. The claims earlier recite only an element “type” (a BCC or FCC element type) and never introduce a corresponding “framework”. Thus, it cannot be determined what structure the recited framework denotes or how it differs from the element type; the claims are therefore indefinite. Further, they recite the limitation “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;” in the classifying step, which permits both element types to be the same, while the simulating step requires “a mixture between the BCC element type and the FCC element type” requiring one of each. The claim both permits and requires the two element types to differ, and the definite recitations “the BCC element type” and “the FCC element type” lack antecedent basis where only a single type may have been selected. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Also claim 1, 7, and 13 recite “dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters” and “similar-type pair parameters” (claim 1) or “similar-type pair interaction potential parameters” (claims 7 and 13), and then recite generating a file based on “the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters”: Claims 6, 12, and 18 recite limitation “the order of the sequence of pair type interaction potential parameters”. The terms “type pair interaction potential parameters” and “pair type interaction potential parameters” are of uncertain scope as it cannot be determined whether they denote the dissimilar-type parameters, the similar-type parameters, or both. The claims are indefinite.
As per Claims 5, 11, and 17, they recite limitation “values obtained from both the BCC element type framework or the FCC element type framework” which is unclear what the limitation refers. The recitation of “both” in conjunction with “or” is internally inconsistent, and the source of the recited values cannot be determined. The claims are indefinite.
Further Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite the limitation “latest available”. The term “latest” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “latest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) anticipated by Wu et al. (“Modified embedded-atom interatomic potential for Fe-Ni, Cr-Ni and Fe-Cr-Ni systems”).
As per Claim 1, 7, and 13, Wu et al. discloses 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 (Abstract, section 3 p. 100 “LAMMPS software…, other calculations were carried out using an in-house code, KISSMD”; p. 104 “The M Ddiffusivity simulations were conducted by LAMMPS code [33]with present potential.”: Inherency considered) to comprising:
obtaining, via one or more hardware processors, one or more input physical parameters corresponding to a multi-element alloy structure, wherein the one or more input physical parameters comprises lattice constants, cohesive energy, vacancy formation energy, and elastic constants, wherein the one or more input physical parameters are taken from experimental values or Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations available in literature (section 2 & 2.1, Table 1-3, p. 99 "the cohesive energy (Ec), the equilibrium nearest-neighbor distance (re), the bulk modulus (B) of the reference structure", "These parameter values are optimized by fitting physical properties of the alloy system, obtained from experiments or first-principle calculations");
classifying, via the one or more hardware processors, 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, 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 (section 2 & 2.1, Table 1-3, p. 99 "Ec, re and B values are optimized so that lattice parameters of FCC and BCC alloys": partitioning the elements by crystal-structure type, treating iron as body centered cubic and nickel as face centered cubic);
computing, via the one or more hardware processors, 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 (section 2 & 2.2, Table 3, p. 99 "one parameter (A) for the embedding function, and two parameters (Cmin, Cmax) for many-body screening": Wu et al. computes an embedding energy function and an atomic electron density for each element);
scaling, by using a scaling factor, via the one or more hardware processors, 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 (section 2.1, p. 99 "the ratio between atomic electron density scaling factor (ρ°) for each element": Wu et al. scales the atomic electron density of each element by an electron-density scaling factor to obtain the elemental interaction potential functions);
identifying, via the one or more hardware processors, one or more dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters based on the set of scaled parameters and the elemental interaction pair potential function (section 2 & 2.2, Table 1-3, p. 99 "the development of the Fe-Cr-Ni ternary potential requires potentials for pure Fe, Cr, Ni and Fe-Cr, Fe-Ni and Cr-Ni binary systems": Wu et al. constructs the dissimilar-element binary pair interaction parameters from the scaled per-element functions);
sequencing, via the one or more hardware processors, the one or more identified dissimilar-type pair interaction potential parameters and one or more similar-type pair parameters (section 2 & 2.2, Table 3, p. 99 "2NN MEAM description of a binary system is based on potentials for constituent pure element potentials, and that of a ternary system is based on potentials for constituent unary and binary systems": Wu et al. assembles the potential from constituent unary, similar-type, and binary, dissimilar-type, parameters in element order);
generating, via the one or more hardware processors, a molecular dynamics potential (MDP) file based on the sequence of the one or more type pair interaction potential parameters (p. 99 "to meet the necessity of the LAMMPS potential file"; p. 104 “The M Ddiffusivity simulations were conducted by LAMMPS code [33]with present potential.”: Wu et al. writes the resulting parameters to a molecular dynamics potential file for use in simulation); and
simulating, via the one or more hardware processors, 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 of a mixture between the BCC element type and the FCC element type using the generated MDP file that is merged from both the BCC element type framework and the FCC element type framework (p. 98 "these potentials can be combined with already-developed MEAM potentials to describe Fe-Cr-Ni-based multicomponent alloys"; p. 101 "Calculated bulk modulus and elastic constants of disordered FCC Fe-Ni phase": Wu et al. combines the body centered cubic and face centered cubic element frameworks into one potential and simulates the resulting alloy's structural, mechanical and thermodynamic properties).
As per Claims 3, 9 and 15, Wu et al. teaches wherein the first set of elements and the second set of elements are distinct from each other (section 2 & 2.1, p. 99 "the development of the Fe-Cr-Ni ternary potential requires potentials for pure Fe, Cr, Ni and Fe-Cr, Fe-Ni and Cr-Ni binary systems": Wu et al. describes binary potentials between the distinct elements iron and nickel).
As per Claims 6, 12 and 18, Wu 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 (section 2, 2.1 & 2.2, p. 99 "2NN MEAM description of a binary system is based on potentials for constituent pure element potentials, and that of a ternary system is based on potentials for constituent unary and binary systems": Wu et al. determines the ordering of the pair parameters from the sequence of constituent element types).
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.
5. Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (“Modified embedded-atom interatomic potential for Fe-Ni, Cr-Ni and Fe-Cr-Ni systems”) as applied to claim 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (“Fundamental mechanism of BCC-FCC phase transition from a constructed PdCu potential through molecular dynamics simulation”).
As per Claims 5, 11, and 17, Wu et al. teaches the per -element electron density scaling factor and BCC + FCC frame context (Wu et al.: p. 99 "the ratio between atomic electron density scaling factor (ρ°) for each element").
However, Wu et al. fails to teach explicitly 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 and wherein calculating the scaling factor comprises:
calculating an atomic electron density at the embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values obtained from both the BCC element type framework or the FCC element type framework, the embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values of the BCC element type framework and the FCC element type framework are linearly and proportionately dependent on each other, wherein the embedding energy function minima values from the BCC element type framework depends on latest available input parameter values of the cohesive energy and the vacancy formation energy.
Wei et al. teaches 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 (Wei et al.: p. 441 "F0 = Ec − Efv, in which Ec and Efv are cohesive energy and vacancy formation energy, respectively") and wherein calculating the scaling factor comprises:
calculating an atomic electron density at the embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values obtained from both the BCC element type framework or the FCC element type framework, the embedding energy function minima and equilibrium electron density values of the BCC element type framework and the FCC element type framework are linearly and proportionately dependent on each other, wherein the embedding energy function minima values from the BCC element type framework depends on latest available input parameter values of the cohesive energy and the vacancy formation energy (Wei et al., p. 441 section 2
PNG
media_image1.png
679
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). In particular, Wei et al. defines the embedding-function minimum as the cohesive energy minus the vacancy formation energy and identifies the equilibrium electron density.
Wu et al. and Wei 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 Wei et al. into Wu et al.’s invention for purpose of molecular dynamics simulations in order to determine the electron-density scaling factor and the embedding-function minima from the cohesive energy, the vacancy formation energy, and the equilibrium electron density, thereby obtaining a well-conditioned interatomic potential for the merged framework for providing a deep understanding of the BCC-FCC phase transition (Wei et al.: Abstract).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Objection to Drawings in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument - Wu et al. in view of Wei et al.:
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18 – Wu et al.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 - Wu et al. in view of Wei et al.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights