DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 7/21/2023.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims 1-8 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. 20200257933 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. 20200257933 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al., in view of NPL by Choudhary K, et al (“Elastic properties of bulk and low-dimensional materials using Van der Waals density functional”). Phys Rev B.2018;98(1):10.1103/physrevb.98.014107. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.98.014107. PMID: 32166206; PMCID: PMC7067065. (Published 2020).
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Relevant Prior Art of Record
Prior art US 20220067249 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al. teaches in [0406] "... [0406] As most classical molecular dynamics simulators, LAMMPS requires the initial positions of the particles as input, LAMMPS can automatically generate initial positions for simple crystals or accept data files provided by user for materials with complex atomic structures.... LAMMPS can determine the elastic constants of simulated materials at a variety of temperatures. Properties such as the bulk modulus, shear modulus, Young's modulus and Poisson ratio can be determined from the elastic constants.". This prior art (same inventor as 102 prior art used) may be used in future to clearly show that molecular dynamics simulation using LAMMPS and VASP ([0410]) can be used to compute the elastic constants like bulk modulus, shear modulus, Young's modulus and Poisson ratio.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior art US 20230420069 A1 by STOJEVIC; Vid et al. teaches in [0314] Current machine learning approaches often used SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) representation of molecules, which encode molecule structures using text data, as input data. This art is also related to drug discovery/which is also a chemical. E.g. Fig.3B also shows quantum simulation inspired by machine learning (ML) to perform drug discovery.
Prior art US 20220067249 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al. teaches in [0020] "... For example, and as shown in FIG. 2, in at least one variation the data store 140 stores a candidate database 142, a training database 143, and a material properties database 144. In some variations the candidate database 142 includes a listing of a plurality of material compositions, including a listing of chemical elements, the training database 143 includes training data, sometimes referred to as “ground-truth data” in the form of training material compositions and known material property values for corresponding training material compositions, and the material properties database 144 includes material compositions with material property values, simulated and/or experimentally determined, from different material property datasets....". Also see [0021]-[0027] & Figs.1-2 showing specific implementation of database to store material properties.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 Number(s)
Limitation
1
An input module
1, 8
A database constructing module
1
An output module
3
A modeling module
3
A structure optimization module
4, 5
An elastic constant calculation module
4
A noise removal module
6, 7
A property information extraction module
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 ¶1 - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the claims recite various modules forming a system, however the specification does not disclose any structure which would implement such module. The sections of the specification are mapped against each of modules and show that the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim,.
Claim Number(s)
Limitation
Support in Specification
1
An input module
Abstract, [0010], [0018], [0034], [0036], [0051], [0097]-[0098], [0100]-[0101]
1, 8
A database constructing module
Abstract, [0010], [0017], [0018]. [0034], [0050], [0095], [0105]
1
An output module
Abstract, [0010], [0018], [0034], [0036], [0051], [0097]-[0098], [0106]
3
A modeling module
[0012], [0038], [0040], [0055]-[0063],
3
A structure optimization module
[0012], [0038], [0041], [0042], [0068]-[0073]
4, 5
An elastic constant calculation module
[0013], [0014]
4
A noise removal module
[0013], [0038], [0047], [0091]
6, 7
A property information extraction module
[0013], [0015], [0016], [0038], [0047]-[0049], [0091]-[0093]
A rejection under 35 USC 112(a) Enablement is not made as the scope of written description defining the various modules is not yet clear. A future rejection based on applicant’s response/amendment may be made. Applicant is highly encouraged to provide structural support for each of the modules in response to avoid future enablement rejection for the disclosed system. The brief specification does not appear to have support for any of the modules.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 ¶2nd - Indefiniteness
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.
Claim limitation listing various “modules” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The modules are mapped in the specification as follows:
Claim Number(s)
Limitation
Support in Specification
1
An input module
Abstract, [0010], [0018], [0034], [0036], [0051], [0097]-[0098], [0100]-[0101]
1, 8
A database constructing module
Abstract, [0010], [0017], [0018]. [0034], [0050], [0095], [0105]
1
An output module
Abstract, [0010], [0018], [0034], [0036], [0051], [0097]-[0098], [0106]
3
A modeling module
[0012], [0038], [0040], [0055]-[0063],
3
A structure optimization module
[0012], [0038], [0041], [0042], [0068]-[0073]
4, 5
An elastic constant calculation module
[0013], [0014]
4
A noise removal module
[0013], [0038], [0047], [0091]
6, 7
A property information extraction module
[0013], [0015], [0016], [0038], [0047]-[0049], [0091]-[0093]
There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, Therefore, the claims 1-8 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner Interpretation of the various “Modules”
For the purpose of examination, the modules are interpreted as generic computer implemented functionality of the function being claimed. E.g. input module is interpreted as a computer input to gather the data.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9 & 10:
Step 1: the claims 1, 9 & 10 are drawn to a system, method and article of manufacture respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1.A system for constructing a database for a structure and a property of a material based on big data, the system comprising:
an input module configured to receive chemical information about the material based on the big data;
a controller configured to obtain information about the structure and the property of the material
by modeling the chemical information about the material based on quantum mechanics and calculating elastic constants;
a database constructing module configured to construct a database for the information about the structure and the property; and
an output module configured to output the information about the structure and the property in the database with respect to a model selected through the modeling.
See Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B for controller and act of obtaining.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The modeling as recited is considered mathematical relationships (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)), mathematical formula/equations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B)), mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) exemplified by specification Fig.3A-3B & 4A-4B & [0023]-[0024] showing known techniques of molecular dynamics simulation and density function simulation, as abstract mathematical concept to compute properties of materials.
The modeling may also recites mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) as it is based on observation (receive chemical information about the material based on the big data) to form an opinion/evaluation (output the information about the structure and the property in the database with respect to a model selected through the modeling).
See step 2A Prong 2 & 2B.
See step 2A Prong 2 & 2B.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. the generic controller, where the modules are considered as algorithm executed by the controller, i.e. no specific structure of the controller or any of the modules is claimed or disclosed. Also the mathematical concepts of modeling disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or computer as a tool. Claims 9 (Method claim) and claim 10 (A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium) recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected likewise.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
.A system for constructing a database for a structure and a property of a material based on big data, the system comprising:
an input module configured to receive chemical information about the material based on the big data;
a controller configured to obtain information about the structure and the property of the material
by modeling the chemical information about the material based on quantum mechanics and calculating elastic constants;
a database constructing module configured to construct a database for the information about the structure and the property; and
an output module configured to output the information about the structure and the property in the database with respect to a model selected through the modeling.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case receiving/obtaining steps are mere data gathering as no specific implementation of modules is claimed or disclosed.
Controlled is disclosed as generic component which executes the functionality of data gathering and executing the modeling (?).
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) 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 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Here the modeling is generically claimed to calculate elastic constants from the received/obtained data.
The structure of database constructing module is not specifically disclosed. The end result is a database, where no specific implementation or construction technique for the database is claimed. This additional element is therefore considered as generic element to store the data.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Here simply outputting is considered as extra solution activity.
In particular, the claim(s) recites the additional elements of a processor for the system claim, at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic controller, database and possibly modules (algorithm on controller – Fig.1 elements 110--114) performing generic functions of receiving, computing and executing information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller/database/modules to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims 1, 9 & 10 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2 recite "... wherein the chemical information includes a molecular structure and a type of a chemical substance constituting the material and an amount of the material...." add merely to abstract idea as claimed in claim 1. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 3-8 recite various modules that perform function of calculating various datum. No specific hardware implementation of modules is claimed. At best in view of Fig.1 it is considered that these controllers are mathematical algorithms being executed on the generic processing device (controller). Computation and storage of material properties (like elastic constants, shear/bulk/Young’s modulus and energies) into database without specific database structure is simply abstract idea (computation aspect, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) & (III)) and extrasolution activity (under MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g)). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
----- This page is left blank after this line -----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. 202002579331 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al.
Regarding Claim 1
Steingrimsson teaches:
(Claim 1) A system for constructing a database (Steingrimsson : [0267]-[0277]; Fig.10 showing the process & database 1007; Claim 1) for a structure and a property of a material (Steingrimsson : Fig.13, [0269] "... [0269] An in-memory implementation of the database stores as inputs vectors, {tilde over (x)}'s, capturing the sources affecting the output quantity of interest, {tilde over (y)}. The in-memory database also stores the aforementioned output quantity. ..."[0288] & [0317] disclosing adding information in database based on simulation (VASP/CALPHAD/DFT)) based on big data, the system comprising:
(Claim 9) A driving method of a system (Steingrimsson : [0267]-[0277]; Fig.10 showing the process; Claim 1)for constructing a database for a structure and a property of a material based on big data (Steingrimsson : Fig.13, [0269] "... [0269] An in-memory implementation of the database stores as inputs vectors, {tilde over (x)}'s, capturing the sources affecting the output quantity of interest, {tilde over (y)}. The in-memory database also stores the aforementioned output quantity. ..."[0288] & [0317] disclosing adding information in database based on simulation (VASP/CALPHAD/DFT)), the method comprising:
(Claim 10) A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recorded with a program for executing the driving method of the system for constructing the database for the structure and the property of the material based on the big data in claim 9 (Steingrimsson: Fig.10 & [0269]"... An in-memory implementation of the database stores as inputs vectors, {tilde over (x)}'s, capturing the sources affecting the output quantity of interest, {tilde over (y)}. The in-memory database also stores the aforementioned output quantity..." ) .
an input module configured to receive chemical information about the material based on the big data (Steingrimsson: Fig.13 & [0288]
PNG
media_image2.png
812
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) ;
a controller configured to obtain information about the structure (Steingrimsson : Fig.13 e.g. microstructure information (p4), and composition (p1) in the prediction step) and the property of the material (Steingrimsson : Fig.13 other inputs) by modeling the chemical information about the material based on quantum mechanics (Steingrimsson : [0320] "... VASP is a computer program for atomic scale materials modelling, e.g. electronic structure calculations and quantum-mechanical molecular dynamics, from first principles. VASP computes an approximate solution to the many-body Schrödinger equation, either within DFT, by solving a Kohn-Sham equations, or within a Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation, by solving Roothaan equations....") and calculating elastic constants (Steingrimsson: Fig. 13 showing elastic constants as Prediction outputs of stiffness or in Fig.16 Elastic modulus, [0230] [0299]
PNG
media_image3.png
800
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) ;
a database constructing module configured to construct a database for the information about the structure and the property (Steingrimsson: Fig.13, [0269] "... [0269] An in-memory implementation of the database stores as inputs vectors, {tilde over (x)}'s, capturing the sources affecting the output quantity of interest, {tilde over (y)}. The in-memory database also stores the aforementioned output quantity. ...") ; and an output module configured to output the information about the structure and the property in the database with respect to a model selected through the modeling (Steingrimsson: Figs. 23-25 showing output related composition and predicted outputs [0386]-[0391]:
PNG
media_image4.png
724
806
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) .
Regarding Claim 2
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the chemical information includes a molecular structure (Steingrimsson : Fig23-25, Fig.13 microstructure (p4)) and a type of a chemical substance constituting the material (Steingrimsson : Fig.13 composition (p1)) and an amount of the material (Steingrimsson: Figs. 23-25 showing amount of each of the material as percentage of each) .
Regarding Claim 3
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the controller includes: a modeling module configured to calculate the chemical information by using Ab initio quantum chemistry methods based on the quantum mechanics in a quantum mechanical method, to model the chemical information, and to generate a quantum mechanical model (Steingrimsson: [0320] as VASP "... VASP is a computer program for atomic scale materials modelling, e.g. electronic structure calculations and quantum-mechanical molecular dynamics, from first principles...") ; and a structure optimization module configured to calculate at least one free energy for the quantum mechanical model based on a density functional theory and to extract one quantum mechanical model having the lowest value among the at least one free energy (Steingrimsson: [0324] "... VASP computes an approximate solution to the many-body Schrödinger equation, either within DFT, by solving a Kohn-Sham equations, or within a Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation, by solving Roothaan equations. Hybrid functionals that mix the Hartree-Fock approach with density functional theory are implemented in VASP as well. Furthermore, Green's functions methods and many-body perturbation theory (2nd-order Møller-Plesset) are available in VASP as well (VASP 2020)....") .
Regarding Claim 4
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 3, wherein the controller further includes: an elastic constant calculation module configured to generate at least one strained quantum mechanical model (Steingrimsson : [0320] "... VASP is a computer program for atomic scale materials modelling, e.g. electronic structure calculations and quantum-mechanical molecular dynamics, from first principles....") by performing modeling strain on the one quantum mechanical model (Steingrimsson: Abstract "... This invention presents an innovative framework for the application of machine learning for identification of alloys or composites with desired properties of interest. For each output property of interest, we identify the corresponding driving (input) factors. These input factors may include the material composition, heat treatment, process, microstructure, temperature, strain rate,..."; The desired properties are identified as elastic constant; [0206], [0288]) , to calculate the elastic constants and compliance for the one quantum mechanical model and the at least one strained quantum mechanical model (Steingrimsson: Fig.16 elastic constant as elastic modulus, [0525] elastic constants are a measure of stiffness, which is the one of the desired properties being predicted in Fig.13) , and to obtain information about a property (Steingrimsson: Fig.13 & 16 stiffness as elastic modulus/constant; Fig.37 shows specifically the elastic modulus which is the slope of stress strain curve and a comparison between the predicted and measured/reference
PNG
media_image5.png
654
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) ; and a noise removal module configured to remove noise by comparing the information about the property with experimental information about the property, which is previously entered (Steingrimsson: Figs.23-25 being tabulated in Fig.36 [0392]-[0399] shows comparison with measured (experimental) data vs predicted data, and noise removal as identification of source of error & remedy (Tables 14-15); The example here is of output of tensile strength (See Fig.13), but anticipates similar property analysis for other outputs like stiffness (which is related elastic constants – as in Fig.13 and 16)).
Regarding Claim 6
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the controller further includes: a property information extraction module (Steingrimsson : [0277] as part of prediction database logic; [0277] "...7.1 General Approach to Prediction of Properties and Feature Sets for Compositions of Interest...") configured to extract only the information about the property from which noise is removed (Steingrimsson: noise removal is mapped to comparison between the machine learning (ML) and DFT (physics based) simulation for any characteristics of interest as discussed in [0319] "... First-principle (DFT) calculations can be used to validate (sanity check) the prediction outcomes of traditional ML systems, i.e., as a part of a hybrid computational system....") .
Regarding Claim 72
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 6, wherein the property information extraction module calculates formation energy and cohesive energy for the one quantum mechanical model by using the elastic constant and the compliance (Steingrimsson: [0319]-[0320] disclosing use of VASP/DFT which can be used to compute/predict the elastic properties (Fig.13/Fig16) and further used in calculating cohesion energy and ionization (formation) energy as discussed in [0341] "... A parametrized description related to the microstructure [notice microstructure is based on elastic modulus as shown in Fig.16] may be based on the following parameters: Radius asymmetry, difference in atomic radii, number of valence electrons, enthalpy of mixing, ideal entropy of mixing, mean melting temperature, difference in Pauling electro-negativity, electro negativity difference, cohesive energy, first ionization energy, ...") , and additionally obtains information about hardness and fracture toughness (Steingrimsson: Fig.13 Prediction output listing fracture toughness and Fig.1 & [0215] hardness) .
Regarding Claim 8
Steingrimsson teaches The system of claim 7, wherein the database constructing module generates the database (Steingrimsson : [0277]"... [0277] The prediction database logic serves as an interface, or abstraction layer, between the prediction engine and the database. The prediction database logic can provide the ability to store internal data structures in memory and later archive in a data base (e.g., by saving on a hard disk drive or a flash drive). The prediction database logic can represent data in a format convenient to the prediction engine...") including at least one of a molecular structure (Steingrimsson: Fig.23-25 composition predicted includes formula of structure and percentage composition of each constituent & weights) , a type, the formation energy and the cohesive energy, a bulk modulus, a shear modulus, Young's modulus (Steingrimsson: Fig.13 as stiffness and Fig.16 elastic modulus from which the 3 above modulus can be calculated3) , the hardness and the fracture toughness (Steingrimsson : Fig.1 & [0215] "... [0215] FIG. 1 presents the primary factors impacting the material properties of alloys, such as high-entropy alloys. The material properties considered [outputs stored in database] include material hardness, yield strength, ultimate strength, plasticity, fatigue, fracture toughness and creep....", Fig.23-25 showing the Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) which is related to hardness and fracture toughness) of the one quantum mechanical model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB No. 20200257933 A1 by Steingrimsson; Baldur Andrew et al., in view of NPL by Choudhary4 K, et al (“Elastic properties of bulk and low-dimensional materials using Van der Waals density functional”). Phys Rev B.2018;98(1):10.1103/physrevb.98.014107. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.98.014107. PMID: 32166206; PMCID: PMC7067065. (Published 2020).
Regarding Claim 5
Steingrimsson teaches in claim 4/1 determining elastic modulus as mapped above. The methodology used is using molecular dynamics simulator like VASP.
Although Steingrimsson does not go into details of the using VASP calculation of elastic constants using VASP and subsequent bulk modulus, a shear modulus, and Young's modulus by using the elastic constant and the compliance is well documented below in Choudhary prior art.
Choudhary teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the elastic constant calculation module obtains the information about the property including at least one of a bulk modulus, a shear modulus, and Young's modulus by using the elastic constant and the compliance (Choudhary: Introduction "... The elastic tensor (ET) [1] is a key property for describing elastic deformation and depends on the symmetry of the material. Important properties such as bulk modulus, shear modulus, Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio and sound velocity, universal elastic anisotropy [2] in materials can be easily obtained from the elastic tensor...."; Pg.3 §Method "... Method: The DFT calculations are performed using the Vienna Ab-initio Simulation Package (VASP) [38,39]..."; Pg.5-6 shows the computation of various Young, Bulk & Shear modulus from the elastic constant computed using VASP:
PNG
media_image6.png
912
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) .
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Choudhary to Steingrimsson, showing the details the VASP methodology to determine the elastic constants (Choudhary: Introduction, §Method and Pg.5-6) . The motivation to combine would have been that Choudhary & Steingrimsson are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of detailed elastic constant determination using the VASP (Vienna Ab-initio Simulation Package) (Choudhary Introduction, §Method and Pg.5-6 & Steingrimsson: [0320]).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/5Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, October 1, 2026
1 Prior Art found initially in L7, L10, L29
2 Chaudhary NPL (used in 103 rejection below) also teaches on Pg.12 "... At present, we have not provided the convex hull energy values for all the materials, but the formation energies of materials available on our website can be used to compute convex-hull stability. Moreover, a user can also use our 6×6 elastic constants data to predict Born’s elastic constant stability [8] of materials...."
3 See Chaudhary Pg.5-6 which my used in future to show that from elastic modulus bulk modulus, a shear modulus, Young's modulus can be calculated.
4 Prior Art found in Google Search (VASP determining the elastic modulus shear bulk or young modulus)
5 Relevant Indicia considered for this action type (based on draft 2027 PAP):
Indicia 1: 1 (external tools, IP.com, global dossier, suggested terms from USPTO Scout, Searches directed in PUBMed database – cited NPLs), 2 (Explaining relevance of prior art not used), 3 (detailed search documentation through detailed Search Notes, such as annotated search results that identify which data sets were reviewed, e.g. citation of L# of google search from which prior art was applied – listed in footnote of the rejection header in respective sections on Pg.18 & 30 above)
Indicia 2: 1 (specific prior art claim mapping), 2(no double patenting with US 20260051374 A1), 3(no 112(a) enablement/see written description rejection only, Also see examiner suggestion Pg.9), 4(101 mapping), 5(apply case law for each statute to formulate the respective rejection).
Indicia 3: 1-3(No restriction/Nothing allowable at present), 4(treating claims under all statutes/regulations), 6(Drafting Office actions that are complete, correct, and clear).
