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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2022-158748, filed 09/30/2022. Therefore, the Effective Filing Date (EFD) assigned to each of the claims 1-8 is the Japanese filing date of Application No. 2022-158748, filed 09/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 05/25/2023, and 07/14/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
The Non-Patent Literature Nishinaga et al. of IDS filed 07/14/2026 is not considered because no translation was provided.
Drawings
The drawings filed 05/25/2023 are accepted.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of “specifying a first vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the second coordinates of the first atom after the change in the bond angle, based on a second change amount of the bond angle, a vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the coordinates of the third atom, and the normal vector, according to the designation of the second change amount”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the designation of the second change amount”. There is antecedent basis for “a second change amount” but there is no basis for the designation of the amount and thus it is unclear if the normal vector is specified according to the second change amount.
With further respect to claim 3, the claim recites the limitation of “specifying a second vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the bond angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the atoms other than the first atom” and thus it is unclear what atoms are included.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites the limitation of “altering the first coordinates of the first atom to the second coordinates obtained by multiplying the first coordinates of the first atom by the rotation matrix that corresponds to a third change amount of the rotation angle amount, according to the designation of the third change amount”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the designation of the third change amount”. There is antecedent basis for “the third change amount” but there is no basis for the designation of the amount and thus it is unclear according to what the coordinates are altered by.
With further respect to claim 4, the claim recites the limitation of “specifying a third vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the rotation angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the atoms other than the first atom”. Thus, it is unclear when the third vector is specified.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a method, and a device.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mental processes recited in claims 1, 7, and 8:
accepting selection of one or more atoms among a plurality of atoms that form a target molecule that exists in a predetermined coordinate space
altering coordinates of each atom of the one or more atoms from first coordinates to second coordinates in the coordinate space
according to designation of a change amount of: a bond length between a first atom included in the one or more atoms for which the selection has been accepted and a second atom that is not included in the one or more atoms but is coupled to the first atom; a bond angle formed by a first bond axis that bonds the first atom and the second atom and a second bond axis that bonds the second atom and a third atom that is not included in the one or more atoms but is coupled to the second atom; or a rotation angle of the second atom with respect to the second bond axis; or any combination of the bond length, the bond angle, or the rotation angle
based on: a unit vector between the coordinates of the first atom and the second atom of which the bond length is to be changed; a normal vector with respect to a plane formed by the fist bond axis and the second bond axis of which the bond angle is to be changed; or a rotation matrix of the second atom of which the rotation angle is to be changed; or any combination of the unit vector, the normal vector, or the rotation matrix, in the coordinate space
Dependent claims 2-6 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claim 2: “altering the first coordinates of each atom of the one or more atoms to the second coordinates that are a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by an amount equal to the unit vector multiplied by a first change amount of the bond length, according to the designation of the first change amount”
Claim 3: “specifying a first vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the second coordinates of the first atom after the change in the bond angle, based on a second change amount of the bond angle, a vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the coordinates of the third atom, and the normal vector, according to the designation of the second change amount; altering the first coordinates of the first atom toe second coordinates at a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of the first atom by an amount equal to the specified first vector; specifying a second vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the bond angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom; and altering the first coordinates of each atom other than the first atom among the one or more atoms to the second coordinates at the destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by the amount equal to the specified second vector”
Claim 4: “altering the first coordinates of the first atom to the second coordinates obtained by multiplying the first coordinates of the first atom by the rotation matrix that corresponds to a third change amount of the rotation angle amount, according to the designation of the third change amount; specifying a third vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the rotation angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom; and altering the first coordinates of each atom other than the first atom among the one or more atoms to the second coordinates at a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by an amount equal to the specific third vector”
Claim 5: “calculating potential energy of the target molecule separately for each form of the target molecule after the alteration in which the coordinates of each atom of the one or more atoms are altered from the first coordinates to the second coordinates in the target molecule, according to each case of the designation of the change amount; and generating a potential curve of the target molecule, based on a plurality of calculated results of the potential energy”
Claim 6: “accepting the selection of the first atom; and accepting the selection of the one or more atoms that include the first atom and another atom linked with the first atom, by selecting the another atom from among the plurality of atoms”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than performing mental steps of altering a molecular structure based on determined values. Thus, the claims are directed to using math to calculate vectors and values and then performing mental processes to simulate the structure accordingly.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception 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 judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claims 1 and 8 recite the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a process
an information processing device comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory
The elements of a device comprising a memory and a processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium are directed to elements of a generic computer. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
None of the dependent claims recite additional elements, and thus do not recite any additional elements that alone or in combination, would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that 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 provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).I, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claims 1 and 8: The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, and a device comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
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)(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, 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mezei (“Simulaid: A Simulation Facilitator and Analysis Program”, Journal of Computational Chemistry, published 2010).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Mezei teaches a method for simulating molecular structures, comprising:
accepting selection of one or more atoms among a plurality of atoms that form a target molecule that exists in a predetermined coordinate space: Mezei teaches an input of a single structure file and teaches molecules in a connectivity matrix with the structure having coordinates (page 2659, column 1, Section Computational Methods), and teaches the user specifying the starting atom (column 2, paragraph 1);
altering coordinates of each atom of the one or more atoms from first coordinates to second coordinates in the coordinate space (page 2660, column 1, Section Editing Conformations)
according to designation of a change amount of: a bond length between a first atom included in the one or more atoms for which the selection has been accepted and a second atom that is not included in the one or more atoms but is coupled to the first atom, a bond angle formed by a first bond axis that bonds the first atom and the second atom and a second bond axis that bonds the second atom and a third atom that is not included in the one or more atoms but is coupled to the second atoms, or a rotation angle of the second atom with respect to the second bond axis, or any combination of the bond length, the bond angle, or the rotation angle: Mezei teaches altering coordinates of atoms in a molecule, wherein a user can add new atoms, and when these are added the user has to specify the bond length plus the bond angle and torsion angle formed by the new atom and a neighbor and a second neighbor of the selected atom (page 2660, column 2, Section Mutate or Extend the Structure), and teaches that a structure can also be translated or rotated by displacement vector coordinates, wherein the translations or rotations will be performed consecutively to ascertain all structures are within the cell (page 2660, column 2, Section Translate and Rotate the Conformation);
based on: a unit vector between the coordinates of the first atom and the second atom of which the bond length it to be changed, a normal vector with respect to a plane formed by the first bond axis and the second bond axis of which the bond angle is to be changed, or a rotation matrix of the second atom of which the rotation angle is to be changed, or any combination of the unit vector, the normal vector, or the rotation matrix, in the coordinate space: Mezei teaches performing a translation according to a displacement vector or performing a rotation by specifying one of the three coordinate axes and the angle to rotate around it, or by entering a 3x3 rotation matrix that will multiply the coordinates used as column vectors (page 2660, column 2, paragraph 1).
Furthermore, Mezei teaches a computer-implemented method as evidence by the use of computer programs and digital files (Abstract) and thus inherently teaches using a generic computer that comprises a processor coupled to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a processing program.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is directed to specifying a first vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the second coordinates of the first atom after the change in the bond angle, based on a second change amount of the bond angle, a vector from the coordinates of the second atom to the coordinates of the third atom, and the normal vector, according to the designation of the second change amount; altering the first coordinates of the first atom to the second coordinates at a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of the first atom by an amount equal to the specified first vector; specifying a second vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the bond angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom; and altering the first coordinates of each atom other than the first atom among the one or more atoms to the second coordinates at the destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by the amount equal to the specific second vector. Mezei teaches the medium of claim 1. Mezei also teaches consecutive translations and rotations of a structure, wherein a translation can be specified by entering displacement vector coordinates, or performing a rotation by specifying one of three coordinate aces and the angel to rotate around it, or by entering a 3x 3 matrix of rotation that will multiply the coordinates used as column vectors. Mezei teaches that several such operations will be executed in consecutive step so that once the requested translation or rotation is performed, all other elements will be checked to ascertain that they are within the periodic cell (page 2660, column 2, Section Translate and Rotate the Conformation). Mezei also teaches that when a new atom is added, the user has to specify the bond angle and torsion angle formed by the new atom and a neighbor and a second neighbor of the selected atom (page 2660, column 2, Section Mutate or Extend the Structure).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to altering the first coordinates of the first atom to the second coordinates obtained by multiplying the first coordinates of the first atom by the rotation matrix that corresponding to a third change amount of the rotation angle amount, according to the designation of the third change amount; specifying a third vector from the first coordinates to the second coordinates of the first atom before and after the change in the rotation angle, when the one or more atoms include the atoms other than the first atom; and altering the first coordinates of each atom other than the first among the one or more atoms to the second coordinates at a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by an amount equal to the specified third vector. Mezei teaches the medium of claim 1. Mezei also teaches performing a rotation by entering a 3 x 3 matrix of rotation that will multiply the coordinates used as column vectors, which also then performs the resulting rotation on other molecules to ascertain that they are still within the periodic cell (page 2660, column 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is directed to accepting the selection of the first atom, and accepting the selection of the one or more atoms that include the first atom and another atom linked with the first atom, by selecting the another atom from among the plurality of atoms. Mezei teaches the medium of claim 1. Mezei also teaches that when adding an atom a user has to specify a neighbor and a second neighbor of the selected atom, and when there are choices, the program will list possible neighbor candidates (page 2660, column 2, Section Mutate or Extend the Structure).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezei, as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 in the 102 rejection above, in view of Dollase (“Optimum Distance Model of Relaxation Around Substitutional Defects”, Phys. Chem. Minerals, published 1980).
The claim is directed to the altering including altering the first coordinates of each atom of the one or more atoms to the second coordinates that are a destination after being moved from the first coordinates of each atom by an amount equal to the unit vector multiplied by a first change amount of the bond length, according to the designation of the first change amount. Mezei teaches the medium of claim 1. Mezei also teaches translating by entering displacement vector coordinates (page 2660, column 2, paragraph 1) and teaches that users can mutate or extend a molecular structure, and that the user has to specify the bond length of the atoms being added (page 2660, column 2, Section Mutate or Extend the Structure).
Mezei does not teach the claim element of altering the coordinates by an amount equal to the unit vector multiplied by a first change amount of the bond length.
However, Dollase teaches an optimal distance model of relaxation around substitutional defects. Dollase teaches optimal interatomic distance models resulting from isovalent substitution (Abstract) and teaches scaling displacements being scaled by multiplying by the difference between the ideal bondlengths (page 300, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the multiplication by the bond length change amount to the method of Mezei because Mezei is directed to simulation of molecular structures (Abstract) and teaches that users can mutate or extend a molecular structure, and that the user has to specify the bond length of the atoms being added (page 2660, column 2, Section Mutate or Extend the Structure) and Dollase is directed to calculation of optimal interatomic distance models (Abstract). Dollase teaches that interatomic displacements resulting from isovalent substitution depend strongly on the structural connectivity (structural type) involved, are decidedly greater for atoms with radius vectors parallel to the substituent’s bonds and at least for atoms with radius vectors oriented between such bonds, decrease in magnitude approximately inversely proportional to the substituent, regardless of direction, and are mostly but not strictly radial (Abstract). Dollase teaches a model wherein the displacement is scaled by multiplying by the difference between ideal bondlengths and teaches that the agreement between several calculations is fairly good (page 300, paragraph 1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of simulating isovalent substitution by multiplying the displacement of an atom by the difference in the ideal bond length and would be motivated to do so in order to accurately model the interatomic distances when mutating the structure and specifying the bond length.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezei, as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 in the 102 rejection above, in view of Li et al. (“DelPhi: a comprehensive suite for DelPhi software and associated resources”, BMC Biophysics, published 2012).
The claim is directed to calculating potential energy of the target molecule separately for each form of the target molecule after the alteration in which the coordinates foe ach atom of the one or more atoms are altered from the first coordinates to the second coordinates in the target molecule, according to each case designation of the change amount; and generating a potential energy curve of the target molecule, based on a plurality of calculated results of the potential energy. Mezei teaches the medium of claim 1. Mezei also teaches attaching certain atomic properties to each atom and printing a structure file with the value (page 2662, column 2, Section Atomic Property Analyses) and teaches interpolating the potential energy from a Delphi map to obtain the electrostatic potential at the position of each atom (page 2662, column 2, Section Delphi Potential Labeling).
Mezei does not teach the claim elements of calculating the potential energy of the target molecule for each form of the target molecule after the alteration.
However, Li et al. teaches a suite for DelPhi for accurate modeling of electrostatic potential and corresponding energies (Abstract). Li et al. teaches that electrostatic interactions play an important role in biological systems because biomolecules are composed of atoms carrying partial charges, and that the distances between atoms inside a biomolecule are on the order of several angstroms, that the resulting electrostatic energy could be very large and be the major component of total energy. Li et al. teaches that because electrostatic interactions are the dominant factors for both inner- and inter- molecular interactions, accurate calculations of electrostatic potential and energies are crucial to reveal the mechanisms of many different biological phenomena (page 1, column 1). Li et al. teaches that DelPhi produces a three dimensional electrostatic potential map (page 2, column 1, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated calculating the potential energy at each iteration of the target molecule to the method of Mezei because Mezei is directed to simulation of molecular structures (Abstract) and analyzing its outcome (page 2667, column 1, Section Conclusion). Li et al. is directed to modeling of electrostatic potential (Abstract) and teaches Li et al. teaches that electrostatic interactions play an important role in biological systems because biomolecules are composed of atoms carrying partial charges, and that the distances between atoms inside a biomolecule are on the order of several angstroms, that the resulting electrostatic energy could be very large and be the major component of total energy. Li et al. teaches that because electrostatic interactions are the dominant factors for both inner- and inter- molecular interactions, accurate calculations of electrostatic potential and energies are crucial to reveal the mechanisms of many different biological phenomena (page 1, column 1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of using DelPhi to map the potential energy at each iteration of the molecule as simulated by Mezei and would be motivated to do so in order to accurately model the electrostatic potentials that differ with each atom carrying a partial charge and the distance between the atoms for analyzing biological mechanisms.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights