DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is response to Application 18/301,289 filed on 04/17/2023. Claims 1-12 are pending in the office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 2: line 5, replaces “values” with -- value --.
As per claim 6: line 5, replaces “values” with -- value --.
As per claim 10: line 4, replaces “values” with -- value --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mathematical process without significantly more.
For the broadest interpretation: claim recited a mathematical process of grouping/clusters molecular element for quantum chemical computations, finding/computing an overlap integral value, and determining which molecular orbitals within a range (active space) from the mathematical steps.
To determine the eligibility as the follow analysis:
Step 1: the part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. the claim recited “a method” (claim 5) which is a process; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing process (claim 1) (as composition of matter); and a quantum chemical computing device (claim 9) which is a system. Thus, the claims fall into one of four categories statutory of invention (step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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.
As discussed above, the broadest interpretation of the entire of claims 1, 5, and 9 those steps in these claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, the steps: “generating a plurality of molecular orbital pairs that indicates a plurality of patterns of combination of two molecular orbitals, based on a plurality of molecular orbitals for a molecule subject to quantum chemical computations” which is representing a mathematical process as union (combination, summing) number of molecular orbitals in a group/clustering process. The next step/limitation “computing, for each of the plurality of molecular orbital pairs, an overlap integral value between included molecular orbitals” which is directed to mathematical step. And the step/limitation “determining first molecular orbitals to be included in an active space orbital group in the quantum chemical computations, based on the overlap integral value of each of the plurality of molecular orbital pairs” also directed to a mathematical process to determine/identify modular orbitals fall in a range (active space) of the mathematical calculation steps.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.
“For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the steps “generating”, “computing”, and “determining” fall within a mental process group of the abstract idea and mathematical concepts. Limitations “generating”, “computing”, and “determining” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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 or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial 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). The claim recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (per claim 1), “a computer to execute a process” (per claim 5) and “a quantum chemical computing device (per claim 9)”. The claim also recites that the steps are performed by a computer.
The limitations “generating”, “computing”, and “determining”, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such formulating a mathematical process using different data information, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, limitations “generating”, “computing”, and “determining” are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In limitation “computing”, the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function performing computing/calculating mathematical process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “generating” and “determining”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
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 explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are additional element a computing device/system is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function performing computing/calculating mathematical process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extrasolution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer to perform limitations “generating”, “computing”, and “determining” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of mathematical concepts or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As per claims 2, 6, and 10: recited the limitation “determining a certain number of molecular orbitals in order from the molecular orbitals that have a largest overlap integral value, as the first molecular orbitals” in which further mathematical process to determining the top/maximum of the range. There is still a mathematical concepted and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
As per claims 3, 7, and 11: recited the limitation “generating the plurality of molecular orbital pairs by combining, from among the plurality of molecular orbitals, second molecular orbitals that have first energy levels, the first energy levels being equal to or higher than a first threshold value, the first energy levels being equal to or lower than a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value” which is till a mathematical concept to comparison between different reference number (threshold for example). Thus, this limitation does not add extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
As per claims 4, 8, and 12: recited the limitation “computing energy of the molecule, based on electron configurations according to the first molecular orbitals included in the active space orbital group” which is also mathematical process and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang et al., (U.S. Pub. 2022/0019931).
As per claim 1: Jiang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a quantum chemical computing program that causes at least one computer to execute a process (‘931, fig. 1, par. [0005], par. [0037] – [0044], quantum computer program and quantum computing device), the process comprising:
generating a plurality of molecular orbital pairs that indicates a plurality of patterns of combination of two molecular orbitals, based on a plurality of molecular orbitals for a molecule subject to quantum chemical computations (‘931, par. [0048], set of core orbitals, active orbitals and virtual orbitals custom-character. In typical quantum chemistry calculations on quantum computers, the core orbitals are assumed to be doubly occupied and their contributions are integrated out to an effective field felt by the active space and virtual space. In these typical quantum chemistry calculations, virtual orbitals are ignored, and the problem is solved exactly within the active space; also see fig. 1, 202-206; and par. [0050] that includes equation (2) represents union/combination of set of active orbitals and set of virtual orbitals);
computing, for each of the plurality of molecular orbital pairs, an overlap integral value between included molecular orbitals (‘931, fig. 2, 208, par. [0033], includes equation (1) as hij and kijki, represent standard integrals over the involved basic function, par. [0053], equation (4)); and
determining first molecular orbitals to be included in an active space orbital group in the quantum chemical computations, based on the overlap integral value of each of the plurality of molecular orbital pairs (‘931, par. [0023], par. [0048], par. [0049], Hartree-Fock on the quantum system of interest to produce a set of new orbits built, and par. [0057], In these typical quantum chemistry calculations, virtual orbitals are ignored, and the problem is solved exactly within the active space; fig. 2, fig. 3, active orbitals 340b; par. [0070]).
As per claim 2: Jiang discloses wherein the determining includes determining a certain number of molecular orbitals in order from the molecular orbitals that have a largest overlap integral values, as the first molecular orbitals (‘931, par. [0056] [0057] [0065]).
As per claim 3: Jiang discloses wherein the generating includes generating the plurality of molecular orbital pairs by combining, from among the plurality of molecular orbitals, second molecular orbitals that have first energy levels, the first energy levels being equal to or higher than a first threshold value, the first energy levels being equal to or lower than a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value (‘931, par. [0065] [0067] [0068] and [0070][0071], active space energy)
As per claim 4: Jiang discloses wherein the process further comprising: computing energy of the molecule, based on electron configurations according to the first molecular orbitals included in the active space orbital group (‘931, par. [0021] [0049] [0071] [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851