DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Status Claims 1-12 are currently pending and under examination herein. Claims 1-12 are rejected. Claim 3 is objected to. Priority The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63271988 filed 10/26/2021. In this action, claims 1-12 are examined as though they had an effective filing date of 10/26/2021 . In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s). Information Disclosure Statement No IDS was found to be submitted. Drawings The drawings filed on 10/25/2022 are accepted. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because it does not contain a period at the end. Each claims must end in a period (see MPEP 608.01(m)). 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. Claim s 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 is indefinite because it ends with the word “for” which seems to imply some missing information or limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and the claim as a whole is indefinite. This rejection can be overcome be delating the word “for” or adding more to the end of the claim. Claims 4-5 depend on Claim 3 and thus contain the above issue due to said dependence. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites a method of screening ligands binding to intrinsically disorganized proteins (IDPs), the method comprising: generating an IDP ensemble comprising one or more of the IDPs . Claim 12 specifies IDPs comprise intrinsically disorganized proteins or proteins with intrinsically disordered regions . Any protein that contains an intrinsically disordered region would be an intrinsically disorganized protein . Therefore, this limitation in Claim 12 does not limit what was considered an intrinsically disorganized protein in C laim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter ( Step 1 : YES ) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea or natural law ( Step 2A , Prong 1 ). Claims 1-12 are directed to a method. In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea: Claim 1 recites the limitation - A method of screening ligands binding to intrinsically disorganized proteins (IDPs), the method comprising: generating an IDP ensemble comprising one or more of the IDPs; sampling ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the generating and sampling could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 1 also recites subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an IDP ensemble; producing a differential binding score (DIBS) based on the sampled ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble docking and modeling the DIGS to identify binding sites on the IDP ensemble. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, subjecting, producing , and modeling could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the limitation - generating the ensemble comprises using molecular dynamics simulations combined with an ensemble of random coil conformations. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the generating could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 3 recites the limitation - wherein sampling ligand interactions comprises randomly sampling a subset of populations from a set of conformations for. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sampling could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 4 recites the limitation - wherein the set of conformations comprises about 1,000. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sampling could practically be done by the human mind or with pen and paper . This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 5 recites the limitation - wherein the subset of conformations comprises about 100. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sampling could practically be done by the human mind or with pen and paper . This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 6 recites the limitation - wherein subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking comprises 24 independent docking routines. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, subjecting could include equations. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 7 recites the limitation - wherein subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking is repeated three times for the ensemble IDP. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, subjecting could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 8 recites the limitation - the DIBS is based on an estimated binding affinity of each docking run and a number of times a particular amino acid is involved in a binding event. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, producing the DIBS could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the limitation - wherein modeling the DIBS comprises modeling data between a plurality of produced DIBS to identify residues corresponding to the binding sites on the IDP ensemble. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, modeling the DIBS could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 10 recites the limitation - comparing the ensemble IDP to a control ensemble comprising random coils. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, comparing could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites the limitation - wherein comparing the ensemble IDP to a control ensemble comprising random coils comprises: generating the control ensemble comprising the random coils and sampling ligand interactions with the control ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating and sampling could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 11 also recites subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to a control ensemble docking; producing a differential binding score (DIBS) for the control ensemble; and modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the control ensemble. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, subjecting, producing, and modeling could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Claim 12 recites the limitation - wherein the IDPs comprise intrinsically disorganized proteins or proteins with intrinsically disordered regions. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating an ensemble of these IDPs could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. These limitations recite concepts of generating, sampling, subjecting, predicting, modeling, and comparing information that are so generically recited that they can be practically performed in the human mind as claimed, which falls under the “Mental processes” and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1- 12 recite abstract idea s ( Step 2A , Prong 1: YES ). Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A , Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not ( Step 2A , Prong 2 ). These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an y additional element s. As such, claims 1- 12 are not patent eligible. 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. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (U . S . Pre Grant Publication 20190279737 A1), in view of Lindsay et al. (2021, Biophysical Chemistry, Vol. 271: 1-11). Italicized text from reference art. The list of applicable claims include: Claim 1. A method of screening ligands binding to intrinsically disorganized proteins (IDPs), the method comprising: i . generating an IDP ensemble comprising one or more of the IDPs; ii. sampling ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions; iii. subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an IDP ensemble docking; iv. producing a differential binding score (DIBS) based on the sampled ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble docking; and v. modeling the DIGS to identify binding sites on the IDP ensemble. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the ensemble comprises using molecular dynamics simulations combined with an ensemble of random coil conformations. Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the DIBS is based on an estimated binding affinity of each docking run and a number of times a particular amino acid is involved in a binding event. Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein modeling the DIBS comprises modeling data between a plurality of produced DIBS to identify residues corresponding to the binding sites on the IDP ensemble. Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the IDPs comprise intrinsically disorganized proteins or proteins with intrinsically disordered regions. Regarding Claim 1 , Na et al. teach (Claim 1.i ) generating an IDP ensemble (Page 3, Paragraph 0047: As a first step , a disorder-to-order transition region is identified from the structure of a target protein ). Na et al. also teach (Claim 1.iii ) subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an IDP ensemble docking (Page 4, Paragraph 0056: Molecular docking is performed on the identified disorder-to-order transition region using a specific compound library ). Na et al. also teach ( Claim1.iv ) producing a differential binding score (DIBS) based on the sampled ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble docking (Page 5, Paragraph 0059: the top two compounds with the highest binding energy value for the target site (disorder-to order transition region) of the protein would be derived as the final candidate compounds by performing the molecular dynamics simulation ). The binding energy value for the target site functioned as a score to select the best option . Na et al. also teach (Claim 1.v ) modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the IDP ensemble (Page 5, Paragraph 0065: a candidate region which is likely to bind to a final candidate compound among the amino acid sequences of the binding candidate proteins is determined ). Regarding Claim 2 , Na et al. teach using molecular dynamics simulations (Page 5-6, Paragraph 0071: performing a molecular dynamics simulation on a complex structure subjected to molecular docking ). Regarding Claim 8 , Na et al. teach the DIBS is based on an estimated binding affinity of each docking run and a number of times a particular amino acid is involved in a binding event (Page 7, Paragraph 0091: the computer device may select a compound having a higher number of sites binding ( number of sites binding = amino acid is involved in a binding event ) to the disorder-to-order transition region or higher binding energy ( binding affinity = binding energy ) than the reference values from among the first candidate compounds ). The selection based on values is equivalent to a biding score. Regarding Claim 9 , Na et al. teach modeling the DIBS comprises modeling data between a plurality of produced DIBS to identify residues corresponding to the binding sites on the IDP ensemble (Page 7, Paragraph 0095: The computer device may use an algorithm, which predicts a binding region for the disorder region of the binding candidate protein to predict the binding possibility ). Na does not teach sampling ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions ( Claim 1.ii ) . Na also does not teach using an ensemble of random coil conformations (Claim 2). Na also does not teach the IDPs comprise intrinsically disorganized proteins or proteins with intrinsically disordered regions (Claim 12). Regarding Claim 1 , Lindsay et al. teach (Claim 1.ii ) sampling ligand interactions with the IDP ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions (Page 3, Column 1, Paragraph 2: the PATCH method of sampling conformations is comprised of four steps ). Regarding Claim 2 , Lindsay et al. teach using an ensemble of random coil conformations (Page 4, Column 1, Paragraph 2: After segment definition, initial configurations for all-atom simulations are generated using Random Coil Generator to produce random backbone conformations with only coils and loops ). Regarding Claim 12 , Lindsay et al. teach the IDPs comprise intrinsically disorganized proteins or proteins with intrinsically disordered regions (Page 1, Column 1, Paragraph 1: These proteins are either completely disordered called intrinsically disordered proteins, or contain large disordered segments referred to as intrinsically disordered regions ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Na et al. with Lindsay et al. because Lindsay et al. utilizes specific methods on protein modeling that are suggested to be well suited for intrinsically disordered proteins (IPDs) (Page 2, Column 2, Paragraph 2: we adopt a computational method that is specifically designed to take advantage of the weakly-interacting nature of IDPs ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the method taught by Lindsay et al . could be readily added to the method s of Na et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because both methodologies were shown to function within the same technical field - modeling and simulati ng intrinsically disordered proteins. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. , as applied to Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 above , in view of Lindsay et al. , as applied to Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 above, and in further view of Hammoudeh et al. (2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Vol. 131: 7390-7401) . Italicized text from reference art. The list of applicable claims include: Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 are above Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein sampling ligand interactions comprises randomly sampling a subset of populations from a set of conformations for Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the set of conformations comprises about 1,000. Claim 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the subset of conformations comprises about 100. Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking comprises 24 independent docking routines. Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising comparing the ensemble IDP to a control ensemble comprising random coils. Claim 11. The method of claim 10, wherein comparing the ensemble IDP to a control ensemble comprising random coils comprises: i . generating the control ensemble comprising the random coils; ii. sampling ligand interactions with the control ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions; iii. subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to a control ensemble docking; iv. producing a differential binding score (DIBS) for the control ensemble; and v. modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the control ensemble. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 are taught by Na et al. and Lindsay et al. (see above ). Regarding Claim 3 , Hammoudeh et al. teach sampling ligand interactions comprises randomly sampling a subset of populations from a set of conformations (Page 7394, Column 2, Paragraph 1: A total of 10 docking runs with an initial population of 150 random conformations were performed with 2 500 000 energy evaluations each ). Regarding Claim 5 . Hammoudeh et al. teach the subset of conformations comprises about 100 (Page 7394, Column 2, Paragraph 1: A total of 10 docking runs with an initial population of 150 random conformations were performed with 2 500 000 energy evaluations each ). Th is art indicates the use of 150 conformations , which is about 100. Regarding Claim 6 , Hammoudeh et al. teach each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking comprises 24 independent docking routines (Page 7394, Column 2, Paragraph 1: A test docking of 25 runs was performed ). If 25 docking routines were performed, it is obvious that 24 were performed before reaching 25. Regarding Claim 10 , Hammoudeh et al. suggests comparing the ensemble IDP to a control ensemble comprising random coils (Page 7397, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Such a pattern, considered typical of coil conformations, could be associated with regions displaying residual structure in the presence of local conformational constraints, as opposed to a more dynamic random coil state, where the backbone chemical shifts would more consistently match the expected random coil values ). Regarding Claim 11 , Hammoudeh et al. suggests (Claim 11.i ) utilizing random coils as the control (Page 7397, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Such a pattern, considered typical of coil conformations, could be associated with regions displaying residual structure in the presence of local conformational constraints, as opposed to a more dynamic random coil state, where the backbone chemical shifts would more consistently match the expected random coil values ). Hammoudeh et al. also teach (Claim 11.iii ) subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to a control ensemble docking (Page 7394, Column 2, Paragraph 1: A test docking of 25 runs was performed ). Hammoudeh et al. does not teach the set of conformations comprises about 1,000 (Claim 4). Hammoudeh et al. also does not teach generating the ensemble comprising the random coils (Claim 11.i ) . Hammoudeh et al. also do not teach sampling ligand interactions with the control ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions (Claim 11.ii ) . Hammoudeh et al. also do not teach producing a differential binding score (DIBS) for the control ensemble (Claim 11.iv ) . Hammoudeh et al. also do not teach modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the control ensemble (Claim 11.v ). Regarding Claim 4 , Lindsay et al. teach the set of conformations comprises about 1,000 (Page 5, Column 1, Paragraph 4: Following the PATCH procedure, a total of 1734 conformations for asyn7 and 1894 conformations for asyn3 were obtained for further analysis ). The art indicates 1734 and 1894 conformations , which are about 1000. Regarding Claim 11 , Lindsay et al. teach (Claim 11.i ) generating an ensemble comprising the random coils (Page 4, Column 1, Paragraph 2: After segment definition, initial configurations for all-atom simulations are generated using Random Coil Generator to produce random backbone conformations with only coils and loops ). Lindsay et al. also teach (Claim 11.ii ) sampling ligand interactions with the control ensemble to produce sampled ligand interactions (Page 3, Column 1, Paragraph 2: the PATCH method of sampling conformations is comprised of four steps ). Lindsay et al. do not teach producing a differential binding score (DIBS) for the control ensemble (Claim 11.iv ) . Lindsay et al. also do not teach modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the control ensemble (Claim 11.v ). Regarding Claim 11 , Na et al. teach (Claim 11.iv ) producing a differential binding score (DIBS) for the control ensemble (Page 5, Paragraph 0059: the top two compounds with the highest binding energy value for the target site (disorder-to order transition region) of the protein would be derived as the final candidate compounds by performing the molecular dynamics simulation ). The binding energy is functioned as a score. Hammoudeh et al. teaches comparison to a control ensemble (see 11.i above). Na et al. also teach (Claim 11.v ) modeling the DIBS to identify binding sites on the control ensemble (Page 5, Paragraph 0065: a candidate region which is likely to bind to a final candidate compound among the amino acid sequences of the binding candidate proteins is determined ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Na et al. and Lindsay et al. with Hommoudeh et al. because Hommoudeh et al. utilizes specific methods related to molecular docking simulations that are suggested to be well suited for intrinsically disordered proteins (Page 7391, Column 2, Paragraph 1: In the second approach, the one we deal with in this paper, a small molecule binds directly to a short segment of an ID protein, stabilizes the overall disordered state, and thereby inhibits protein-protein interactions that require coupled folding and binding . The second approach has a major functional advantage in that it does not require high-resolution structural data of an ID protein’s binding partner ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the method taught by Hommoudeh et al. could be readily added to the method s of Na et al. and Lindsay et al . with a reasonable expectation of success because all are utilizing methods that have been found to function within the same technical field - modeling and simulati ng intrinsically disordered proteins. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-12 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. , as applied to Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 above , in view of Lindsay et al. , as applied to Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 above, and in further view of Michel and Cuchillo (2012, Plos One, Vol. 7, No. 7: 1-13) . Italicized text from reference art. The list of applicable claims include: Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 are above Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking is repeated three times for the ensemble IDP. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 12 are taught by Na et al. and Lindsay et al. (see above ). Regarding Claim 7 , Na et al. teach subjecting each of the sampled ligand interactions to an ensemble docking for the ensemble IDP (Page 4, Paragraph 0056: Molecular docking is performed on the identified disorder-to-order transition region using a specific compound library ). Na et al do not teach repeating the simulation three times for the ensemble IDP (Claim 7). Regarding Claim 7 , Michel and Cuchillo suggest repeating the simulation for the ensemble IDP (Page 10, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Each simulation was repeated twice ). The amount of r eplication needed is based on the amount of variation to be controlled . Therefore, it would be routine optimization and obvious to increase the number of replicates from 2 to 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Na et al. and Lindsay et al. with Michel and Cuchillo because Michel and Cuchillo utilize specific methods on modeling binding that are suggested to be well suited for intrinsically disordered proteins (Page 2, Column 2, Paragraph 1: Detailed comparison of the computed apo and holo structural ensembles reveals how ligand binding modulates the equilibrium ensemble of c- Myc402 - 412, provides new insights into the mechanisms of molecular recognition between a small molecule and an IDP, and has important implications for structure-based strategies ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the method taught by Michel and Cuchillo could be readily added to the method s of Na et al. and Lindsay et al . with a reasonable expectation of success because all have been shown to function with the same technical field - modeling and simulati ng intrinsically disordered proteins. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 7-9, and 12 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Conclusion No Claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BLAKE H ELKINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2649 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8- 5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9047 . 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. / B.H.E ./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687 /Karlheinz R. Skowronek/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687