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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/037849 which claims benefit from foreign application JP2020-174602 filed on 10/16/2020. Thus, the effective filing date of the instant application is 10/16/2020.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 04/11/2023 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2023 and 02/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106:
Eligibility Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to a method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if
so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception,
examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation (mathematical concept)
performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model; and (mathematical concept)
calculating an index of a degree of adsorption of lubricant molecules to the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation (mathematical concept)
Independent claim 2 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation; (mathematical concept)
performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model; and (mathematical concept)
calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation. (mathematical concept)
Independent claim 3 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation; (mathematical concept)
performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model; (mathematical concept)
calculating an index of a degree of adsorption of lubricant molecules to the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation; (mathematical concept)
calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation; and (mathematical concept)
evaluating the performance of the lubricating layer based on the index of the degree of adsorption and the index of the degree of lubrication. (mental process/ mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 4 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and (mathematical concept, this just limits what the molecular simulation is completed on)
the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium (mathematical concept, this just limits what the molecular simulation is completed on)
Dependent claim 5 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and
the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium.
Dependent claim 6 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and
the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper, and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-6 recite an abstract idea as the dependent claims will inherit the abstract ideas from the independent claims.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further
examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a
whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception
in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements
are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP
2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract
idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
The additional element in independent claim 1 includes:
A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising:
The additional element in independent claim 2 includes:
A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising:
The additional element in independent claim 3 includes:
A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising:
The additional elements of a method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising (Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3) fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-6 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
The additional elements recited in claims 1-6 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A: Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A: Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising (Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3) fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
When taken alone, all additional elements in claims 1-6 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-6 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010168512A in view of CN103745046B. The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 3, JP2010168512A teaches an analysis result obtained by examining a lubricant according to an embodiment of the present invention by molecular dynamics simulation. In this analysis model, a substrate in which polar groups (—OH groups) 10 are evenly arranged on the surface of the protective film 8 (diamond-like carbon film) is considered, and there is a lubricant polymer 11 having a molecular weight of about 2500 g / mol. The attached model was used. In the lubricant molecule, a total of 8 polar groups (—OH groups) are attached to the polymer terminal and the middle part, and 4 nonpolar side chains (p = 2 in the formula (12)) are located in the middle part. The structure is attached. In the adhesion morphology analysis, the prepared polymer was placed on a substrate, and molecular dynamics calculation was performed until the energy of the entire system was stabilized at room temperature (description, pg. 4, paragraph 8, performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model; and (Claim 1), performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model; and (Claim 2), performing molecular dynamics calculation of a lubricating layer initial model constructed from the lubricant molecular model and the protective layer model (Claim 3) JP2010168512A also teaches lubricant polymer having the main chain skeleton 2 is adsorbed on the substrate 1, the polar group 3 is bonded to the polar group on the substrate side by hydrogen bonding, and the nonpolar side chain 4 faces the space side. When the polar group of the lubricant faces the substrate side, the adsorption force with the substrate is improved, and the non-polar side chain faces the spatial direction, whereby the surface energy of the lubricating film can be reduced. As a result, the effect of reducing the adhesion of contaminants and the frictional force can be expected, and the lubrication characteristics can be improved (Description, pg. 3, paragraph 7, calculating an index of a degree of adsorption of lubricant molecules to the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation. (Claim 1), calculating an index of a degree of adsorption of lubricant molecules to the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation (Claim 3)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 4, 5, 6, JP2010168512A teaches a lubricant and a magnetic disk device using the same, and a lubricant suitable for contributing to stabilization of the interface with the magnetic disk while keeping the flying height of the magnetic head low, and to use the same The present invention relates to a magnetic disk device. In recent years, in a magnetic disk device, the flying height of a magnetic head has been reduced to about 10 nm with an increase in recording density. When the magnetic head frequently contacts and slides on the magnetic recording medium, damage due to wear occurs. Therefore, a protective film and a lubricating layer are formed on the surface. In the future, the flying height tends to decrease year by year, and the chance that the magnetic head directly contacts the disk side is expected to increase rapidly. Further, with the increase in the number of rotations and the thinning of the lubricating layer, it has become difficult to keep the lubricant uniformly on the disk surface, and the control of the lubricating layer has become an important issue. (Description, pg. 1, paragraph 1-2, the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium (Claim 4), the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium (Claim 5) the protective layer is a protective layer formed on a surface of a magnetic recording medium, and the lubricant molecules are lubricant molecules for the magnetic recording medium (Claim 6))
JP2010168512A does not explicitly teach
A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation; (Claim 1),
A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation (Claim 2),
method for evaluating the performance of the lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation (Claim 3)
calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation (Claim 2)
calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation; and (Claim 3)
evaluating the performance of the lubricating layer based on the index of the degree of adsorption and the index of the degree of lubrication (Claim 3)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 3, CN103745046B teaches using quantum chemical calculations for evaluation of a lubricant against a surface (Claim 1 of CN103745046B, A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation; (Claim 1), A method for evaluating a performance of a lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation (Claim 2), method for evaluating the performance of the lubricating layer, comprising: preparing a lubricant molecular model and a protective layer model, using quantum chemical calculation (Claim 3) CN103745046B also teaches that according to the established prediction model, predict the average friction coefficient of a compound with a molecular structure different from the molecular structure selected as a lubricating base oil when used as a lubricating base oil (Claim 1 of CN103745046B, calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation (Claim 2), calculating an index of a degree of lubrication of lubricant molecules on the protective layer from a result of the molecular dynamics calculation; and (Claim 3) CN103745046B in view of JP2010168512A would be obvious to add the prediction of absorption taught by JP2010168512A when evaluating the performance of a lubricant. Combining two well known evaluation metrics to make a more complete assessment is a predictable aggregation of prior art elements to improve the computationally aided evaluation of lubricants (evaluating the performance of the lubricating layer based on the index of the degree of adsorption and the index of the degree of lubrication (Claim 3))
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine JP2010168512A with CN103745046B as both deal in the same field of evaluating lubricants. A method of evaluating a lubricant taught by JP2010168512A was ready to be easily modified and improved by adding quantum calculations to help improve molecular dynamics and the use of calculations of an index of a degree of lubrication for evaluating a lubricant. JP2010168512A in view of CN103745046B would be obvious to add the prediction of absorption combined with an index of a degree of lubrication when evaluating the performance of a lubricant. Combining two well-known evaluation metrics to make a more complete assessment is a predictable aggregation of prior art elements to improve the computationally aided evaluation of lubricants. There is a reasonable expectation of success because combining the scoring metrics does not change how the underlying model works therefore it is expected to continue to work. In addition, there is a reasonable expectation of success with the introduction of quantum mechanics to help calculate molecular dynamics because it is a well-known method of calculating molecular properties and dynamics which would be easily accessible to any person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the addition of quantum mechanics just changes the input to the model and does not change how the underlying model works therefore it is expected to continue to work.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor Beveridge whose telephone number is 571-272-2099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 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.
/C.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights