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 1-10 and 15 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected.
Claims 1 and 15 are amended.
Claims 11-14 are canceled.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/056099 which claims priority from provisional application filed on 10/22/2020. Thus, the effective filing date of the instant application is 10/22/2020.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 04/19/2023 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “of-diagonal” should be “off-diagonal.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of-diagonal” should be “off-diagonal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “low intrusion method treatments” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low intrusion method treatments” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 6 is therefore rejected under 112(b).
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 and 15 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 1-10 and 15 are directed to a computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum
[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:
calculating a ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system and/or a subsystem of particles in isolation; (mathematical concept)
calculating a coupling between fermions using quantum mechanical hopping matrix elements between hybridized fermions and long range Coulomb and exchange interactions for a given charge and spin density; (mathematical concept)
calculating a system free energy as a function of structural properties of molecules based on the solved energy spectrum of the system, given positions of the particles and orientations of the particles, the positions being the center of charge for each of the particles; and (mathematical concept)
simulating the system of particles by integrating a time evolution of the structural properties using the time evolution of the quantum state given its initial state. (mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 2 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the simulated systems of particles include at least one of a gas, a liquid, a nano-device, biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, and/or DNA, as well as polymers and small molecules. (mathematical concept, this just limits what the math is done on)
Dependent claim 3 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
further comprising: identifying a number of coherent of-diagonal long-range ordered quantum states at room temperature, wherein the coherent quantum states are building blocks of qubits for quantum computer and quantum memory storage (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 4 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
entering data corresponding to a designed material; (mathematical concept, under the BRI this includes entering data into a formula)
upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecule or molecules; (mathematical concept)
and estimating macroscopic properties of the molecule or molecules and validity of the designed material. (mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 5 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
identifying energy transfer channels and/or frequencies during bond formation and/or breaking between particles. (mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 6 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
targeting electrical signals in the identified channel and/or frequency to enhance and/or impede the bond formation and/or breaking (mathematical concepts)
Dependent claim 7 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
selecting a new drug; (mental process)
entering data corresponding to the selected new drug and bio-molecules; (mathematical concept)
upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecules; (mathematical concept)
estimating macroscopic properties of the molecules of the new drug and validity of the selected drug; and (mathematical concept, mental process)
estimating a potency of the selected drug in enhancement or impediment of bond formation between molecules including bio-molecules such as protein molecules (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 8 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the particles include at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules (mathematical concept, this just limits what the math is done on)
Dependent claim 9 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules is treated as quantum mechanical particles (mathematical concept, this just limits what the math is done on)
Dependent claim 15 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the calculating the ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system and/or a subsystem of particles in isolation includes: setting up Hartree-Fock mean field Hamiltonian parameters and solving the Hamiltonian; (mathematical concept)
performing Bogoliubov transformation on the Hamiltonian; (mathematical concept)
splitting the Hamiltonian into chiral symmetry breaking parts; (mathematical concept)
solving the Hamiltonian to obtain eigenstates of the chiral symmetry breaking Hamiltonian;
imposing no-double-occupancy constraint; and (mathematical concept)
constructing new Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian from full many-body Hamiltonian in the new chiral symmetry breaking basis. (mathematical concept)
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 1-10, 15 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 computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum, including a ground state energy and the single-fermion excitation energies, and corresponding eigenstates of a system and/or subsystems of particles, including a ground state
PNG
media_image1.png
37
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the single-fermion excited states
PNG
media_image2.png
37
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the method comprising
The additional element in dependent claim 4 includes:
wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new material, and the method further comprising:
The additional element in dependent claim 6 includes:
wherein the identifying the energy transfer channels and/or frequencies are used for designing low intrusion method treatments, the method further comprising:
The additional element in dependent claim 7 includes:
wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new drug, the method further comprising:
The additional elements of a computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum, including a ground state energy and the single-fermion excitation energies, and corresponding eigenstates of a system and/or subsystems of particles, including a ground state
PNG
media_image1.png
37
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the single-fermion excited states
PNG
media_image2.png
37
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the method comprising (Claim 1), wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new material, and the method further comprising (Claim 4), wherein the identifying the energy transfer channels and/or frequencies are used for designing low intrusion method treatments, the method further comprising (Claim 6), wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new drug, the method further comprising (Claim 7) 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). Additionally, the limitations simply relate the judicial exceptions to a particular field of use such as iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199 (MPEP 2106.05(h).
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 1-10, 15 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 1-10, 15 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 1-10, 15 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 computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum, including a ground state energy and the single-fermion excitation energies, and corresponding eigenstates of a system and/or subsystems of particles, including a ground state
PNG
media_image1.png
37
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the single-fermion excited states
PNG
media_image2.png
37
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the method comprising (Claim 1), wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new material, and the method further comprising (Claim 4), wherein the identifying the energy transfer channels and/or frequencies are used for designing low intrusion method treatments, the method further comprising (Claim 6), wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new drug, the method further comprising (Claim 7) are conventional 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). Additionally, the limitations simply relate the judicial exceptions to a particular field of use such as iii. Limiting the use of the formula C = 2 (pi) r to determining the circumference of a wheel as opposed to other circular objects, because this limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim, Flook, 437 U.S. at 595, 198 USPQ at 199 (MPEP 2106.05(h).
When taken alone, all additional elements in claims 1-10, 15 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 1-10, 15 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, 2, 8, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1963, 276 (1365), 238–257) in view of Car et al. (Car, R.; Parrinello, M. Unified Approach for Molecular Dynamics and Density-Functional Theory. Physical Review Letters 1985, 55 (22),) in further view of Nambu et al. (Nambu et al, Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. II, Phys. Rev, 1961, Oct, American Physical Society, 10.1103/PhysRev.124.246). The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, Hubbard teaches methods to calculate the ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system in isolation (pg. 247, paragraph 5, including a ground state energy and the single-fermion excitation energies, and corresponding eigenstates of a system and/or subsystems of particles, including a ground state
PNG
media_image1.png
37
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the single-fermion excited states
PNG
media_image2.png
37
58
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the method comprising: calculating a ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system and/or a subsystem of particles in isolation; Claim 1) Hubbard also teaches the first term of H represents the ordinary band energies of the electrons, the second their interaction energy. The last term subtracts the potential energy of the electrons in that part of the Hartree-Fock field arising from the electrons of the s-band itself. This term has to be subtracted off to avoid counting the interactions of the electrons of the band twice, once explicitly in the Hamiltonian and also implicitly through the Hartree-Fock field determining the ek. The Vk are the assumed occupation numbers of the states of the band in the Hartree-Fock calculation; it has been assumed that up and down spin states are occupied equally (pg. 242, paragraph 5, calculating a coupling between fermions using quantum mechanical hopping matrix elements between hybridized fermions and long range Coulomb and exchange interactions for a given charge and spin density (Claim 1)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 10, 15, Hubbard teaches ds is well known, one may obtain the effective Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian by 'linearizing' the interaction terms in the true Hamiltonian. In the case of the Harniltonian of (10) this amounts to simply replacing the term n, ni, -, by ni, + ni, , where is the average of the expectation of ni, over a canonical ensemble at some temperature. Which is equivalent to determining equilibrium ar the start. Each system then goes to equilibrium before further calculations. The initial states are used to calculate the average potential field created by all other particles. The Hartree-Fock Method dynamically refines this Hamiltonian until a self-consistent equilibrium is achieved—where the single-particle orbitals no longer change upon further iteration Hubbard also teaches that no two electrons can be on the same site (pg. 255, paragraph 2) one may obtain the effective Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian by 'linearizing' the interaction terms in the true Hamiltonian (pg. 245, paragraph 3, wherein the initial isolated state for each particle is an equilibrium state (Claim 10), wherein the calculating the ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system and/or a subsystem of particles in isolation includes: setting up Hartree-Fock mean field Hamiltonian parameters and solving the Hamiltonian (Claim 15) imposing no-double-occupancy constraint (Claim 15)
Hubbard does not explicitly teach
A computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum (Claim 1)
calculating a system free energy as a function of structural properties of molecules based on the solved energy spectrum of the system, given positions of the particles and orientations of the particle
and simulating the system of particles by integrating a time evolution of the structural properties using the time evolution of the quantum state given its initial state (Claim 1),
wherein the simulated systems of particles include at least one of a gas, a liquid, a nano-device, biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, and/or DNA, as well as polymers and small molecules (Claim 2)
wherein the particles include at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules (Claim 8)
splitting the Hamiltonian into chiral symmetry breaking parts (Claim 15)
solving the Hamiltonian to obtain eigenstates of the chiral symmetry breaking Hamiltonian (Claim 15)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 8, Car et al. teaches the
PNG
media_image3.png
38
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here (Ri) indicate the nuclear coordinates and (n„}are all the possible external constraints imposed on the system, like the volume fl, the strain e,etc. The functional U contains the internuclear Coulomb repulsion and the effective electronic potential energy. It is routine to calculate free energy from surface potential to calculates free energy differences (Delta A)) between two states (e.g., State A and State B). (pg. 2471 and equation 1, calculating a system free energy as a function of structural properties of molecules based on the solved energy spectrum of the system, given positions of the particles and orientations of the particles, the positions being the center of charge for each of the particles (Claim 1)) Car et al. also teaches the Car-Parrinello (CP) method integrates coupled equations of motions for the nuclear coordinates. The atomic structure is integrated forward in time which simulates the system of particles (pg. 2472, col. 1, paragraph 3, and simulating the system of particles by integrating a time evolution of the structural properties using the time evolution of the quantum state given its initial state (Claim 1), wherein the particles include at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules (Claim 8)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 2, Car et al. teaches the method used to simulate the molecular dynamics of gases (abstract, wherein the simulated systems of particles include at least one of a gas, a liquid, a nano-device, biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, and/or DNA, as well as polymers and small molecules (Claim 2)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 15, Nambu et al. introduce a trial ground state representing the vacuum and perform a linear canonical transformation mixing creation and annihilation operators of bare massless fermions (analogous to electrons and holes in BCS theory) into operators of massive quasi-particles (the physical nucleons). This transformation is what allows the system to possess an energy gap—which they translate directly into the dynamical mass of the nucleon (pg. 348, performing Bogoliubov transformation on the Hamiltonian (Claim 15), Nambu et al. also rewrites the interacting four-fermion Hamiltonian by separating it into a free-particle term (which includes the dynamically generated mass/energy gap) and a residual interaction term. By enforcing the self-consistency condition—that the vacuum expectation value of the interaction terms vanishes (the Hartree-Fock or gap equation)—they explicitly split the Hamiltonian into a chirally symmetric part and the chiral symmetry-breaking components caused by the non-zero fermion mass (pgs. 348 – 349, A computer-implemented method for solving a low energy excitation spectrum(Claim 1), splitting the Hamiltonian into chiral symmetry breaking parts (Claim 15) Nambu et al. also teaches that diagonalizing the bilinear part of the Hamiltonian provides the spectrum of quasi-particle excitations. By solving this, Nambu and Jona-Lasinio find that the energy of the system splits. They then use the eigenstates of the symmetry-broken Hamiltonian to compute the interactions of these quasi-particles, discovering a collective, massless pseudoscalar bound state of a nucleon-antinucleon pair that serves as their idealized, zero-mass pion (a precursor to Nambu-Goldstone bosons) (pgs. 348 – 349, solving the Hamiltonian to obtain eigenstates of the chiral symmetry breaking Hamiltonian (Claim 15)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Hubbard with Car et al. to make a method to simulate quantum systems. Hubbard teaches the calculating a ground state and single-fermion excited states of a system in isolation and the coupling between fermions and long range coulomb exchange reactions. While Car et al. teaches the calculation of energy based on nuclear position and the simulating a system via integration over time. There is a strong motivation to combine as well as a reasonable expectation of success as Car et al. even expressly invites it and states it can be applied to the study of classical field theories or to obtain the ground-state energy in Hartree-Fock or configuration interaction schemes (pg.2472, col. 2, paragraph 3) which is exactly what Hubbard teaches. Additionally, one would be motivated to add Nambu et al. for the addition of the Bogoliubov transformation and splitting the Hamiltonian into chiral symmetry as its in the same field of endeavor also. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Bogoliubov transformations are a well understood routine mathematical concept and can easily be applied.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 above in further view of Yang (Yang, C. N. (1983). Concept of off-diagonal long-range order and the quantum phases of liquid He and of superconductors (pp. p. 339–349.). W.H. Freeman and Company.) in further view of Arroyo-Camejo et al (Arroyo-Camejo, S.; Lazariev, A.; Hell, S. W.; Gopalakrishnan, B. Room Temperature High-Fidelity Holonomic Single-Qubit Gate on a Solid-State Spin. Nature Communications 2014, 5 (1), 4870.). The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 have been taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. above.
Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. does not explicitly teach
identifying a number of coherent of-diagonal long-range ordered quantum states (Claim 3)
at room temperature, wherein the coherent quantum states are building blocks of qubits for quantum computer and quantum memory storage (Claim 3)
However, these limitations were known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Yang in view of Arroyo-Camejo et al.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 3, Yang teaches it is possible to have an off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) of the reduced density matrices in the coordinate space representation. The onset of such an order leads to a new thermodynamic phase of the system (pg. 1, col. 1, paragraph 2, identifying a number of coherent of-diagonal long-range ordered quantum states (Claim 3)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 3, Arroyo-Camejo et al. teaches quantum bits and memory storage at room temperature (pg. 2, col. 1, paragraph 1-2, at room temperature, wherein the coherent quantum states are building blocks of qubits for quantum computer and quantum memory storage (Claim 3))
A person of ordinary would be motivated to combine Arroyo-Camejo et al. in view of Yang with the method of solving a low energy excitation spectrum taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as Yang teaches the off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) and Arroyo-Camejo et al. teaches quantum bits and memory storage at room temperature all works deal with solving quantum equations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to bring in prior art of scaling quantum calculations and the use of quantum qubits at room temperature. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the methods are being combined and known and predictable ways. Additionally, the math is able to be successfully merged without changing how each formula functions further showing a high expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 above in further view of Marx et al (Marx, D.; Parrinello, M. Ab Initio Path Integral Molecular Dynamics: Basic Ideas. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1996, 104 (11)). The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 have been taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. above.
Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules is treated as quantum mechanical particles (Claim 9)
However, these limitations were known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Marx et al.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 9, Marx et al teaches treating nuclei as quantum mechanical particles (abstract, wherein the at least one of atoms, nuclei and molecules is treated as quantum mechanical particles (Claim 9)
A person of ordinary would be motivated to combine Marx et al. with the method of solving a low energy excitation spectrum taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as Marx et al. just adds treating nuclei as quantum mechanical particles which is an obvious extension over the war as it even shares coauthors with Car et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to bring in prior art of handling various particles. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the methods are being combined and known and predictable ways. Additionally, the math is able to be successfully merged without changing how each formula functions further showing a high expectation of success as it is only a minor change to treat a nuclei as a particle.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 above in further view of Zhao et al. (Zhao, H.; Caflisch, A. Molecular Dynamics in Drug Design. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2015, 91, 4–14.) The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 15 have been taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. above.
Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. does not explicitly teach
wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new material, and the method further comprising: entering data corresponding to a designed material; upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecule or molecules; and estimating macroscopic properties of the molecule or molecules and validity of the designed material (Claim 4)
further comprising: identifying energy transfer channels and/or frequencies during bond formation and/or breaking between particles (Claim 5),
wherein the identifying the energy transfer channels and/or frequencies are used for designing low intrusion method treatments, the method further comprising: targeting electrical signals in the identified channel and/or frequency to enhance and/or impede the bond formation and/or breaking, (Claim 6),
wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new drug, the method further comprising: selecting a new drug; entering data corresponding to the selected new drug and bio-molecules; upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecules; estimating macroscopic properties of the molecules of the new drug and validity of the selected drug; and estimating a potency of the selected drug in enhancement or impediment of bond formation between molecules including bio-molecules such as protein molecules (Claim 7)
However, these limitations were known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Zhao et al.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, Zhao et al. teaches simulation of drugs including kinase inhibitor for the treatment of cancer. They discuss how using MD simulations can improve the design of drugs to ensure they are effective increasing efficiency in drug discovery by ensuring designed drugs are effective. MD simulations can be used to determine which drugs are most effective before experimental testing. The simulations are calculating binding energy such as the formation of hydrogen bonds and protein ligand binding which are a type of energy transfer. MD simulation inherently has generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecule or molecules. They also estimated the binding affinity values which is a macroscopic property. The drugs can be taken orally or intravenously so they are minimally intrusive. Examiner also asserts that drugs are a type of material. (pgs. 1-3) Webster dictionary defines material as the elements, constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made (wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new material, and the method further comprising: entering data corresponding to a designed material; upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecule or molecules; and estimating macroscopic properties of the molecule or molecules and validity of the designed material (Claim 4) further comprising: identifying energy transfer channels and/or frequencies during bond formation and/or breaking between particles (Claim 5), wherein the identifying the energy transfer channels and/or frequencies are used for designing low intrusion method treatments, the method further comprising: targeting electrical signals in the identified channel and/or frequency to enhance and/or impede the bond formation and/or breaking, (Claim 6), wherein the simulated systems of particles include a molecule or molecules for designing a new drug, the method further comprising: selecting a new drug; entering data corresponding to the selected new drug and bio-molecules; upon completion of the simulation, generating data relating to positions, velocities, energies of the molecules; estimating macroscopic properties of the molecules of the new drug and validity of the selected drug; and estimating a potency of the selected drug in enhancement or impediment of bond formation between molecules including bio-molecules such as protein molecules (Claim 7)
A person of ordinary would be motivated to combine Zhao et al. with the method of solving a low energy excitation spectrum taught by Hubbard in view of Car et al. in further view of Nambu et al. as Zhao et al. as it just shows a potential application of MD simulations in the field of drug discovery. There is a reasonable expectation of success because nothing is being changed the MD simulation is just being applied in a particular field of drug discovery which has been done before and is well known.
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