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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to patent application as filed on 1/12/2024, which is a CON of PCT/JP22/28839 filed 07/26/2022, which claims priority to Japanese Pat. App. No: 2021-123686 filed 07/28/2021.
This action is made Non-Final.
Claims 1 – 28 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 25, 26, 27 and 28 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 1/12/2024 have been accepted 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 1-7, 9-21 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the Examiner is guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), and the October 2019 Update of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Oct. 17, 2019).
Step 1
Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U. S. ____ (2014). Claim 1 is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for map and image generation satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts). (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more of map and image generation. The claim recites:
1. An information display method comprising: obtaining a predicted property value of each of compounds; obtaining first display method information indicating a display method for the predicted property value; generating a map indicating the predicted property value of each of the compounds, according to the first display method information; and generating an image including the map, and outputting the image, wherein the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables among variables to be used in representing compositions of the compounds.
The limitations of obtaining a predicted property value; obtaining a display method; generating a map; generating an image, and outputting the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Note: the Examiner’s language (e.g. “obtaining a predicted property value”; “generating a map,” etc.) is an abbreviated reference to the detailed claim steps and is not an oversimplification of the claim language; the Examiner employing such shortcuts (that refer to more specific steps) when attempting to explain the rejection). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, and/or performed as organized human activity. Aside from the general technological environment (addressed below), it covers purely mental concepts and/or certain methods of organizing human activity processes, and the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance (e.g. an interface for inputting or outputting data, or generic network-based storage devices and displays) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Specifically, the utilizing statistical tools to process the data and to output the estimated values - said functions could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., mental comparison regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data in Ambry, Myriad CAFC, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grams)). In Grams, the recited functions require obtaining data or patient information (from sensors), and analyze that data to ascertain the existence and identity of an abnormality or estimated responses, and possible causes thereof. While said functions are performed by a computer, they are in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they represent "[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 93 S.Ct. 253, 254, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held, “without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
It is similar to other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts. See, also, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data and time data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind; DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services 669 Fed. Appx. 572 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - remote image capture with centralized processing and storage.
Further, regarding parsing and extracting the data, - in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, Nos. 13-1588,-1589, 14-1112, -1687 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) the Federal Circuit affirmed that such limitations were generally directed to “the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.” The Court explained that ”[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known,” and noted that “humans have always performed these functions.” Id. The Court then rejected CET’s argument that the claims were patent eligible because they required hardware to perform functions that humans cannot, such as processing and recognizing the stream of bits output by the scanner. Comparing the asserted claims to “the computer-implemented claims in Alice,” the Court concluded that the claims were “drawn to the basic concept of data recognition and storage,” even though they recited a scanner. Id. at 8. Mental processes, e.g., parsing and extracting, as recited in claim 1, remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource Corp. at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson, [409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”).
As per receiving and outputting data limitations, it has been held that “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, organizing, grouping, and storing data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing recited a method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract ideas).
All these cases describe the significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
Therefore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes).
Step 2A – Prong 2
In Prong Two, the Examiner determines whether claim 1, as a whole, recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, i.e., whether the additional elements apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. If the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception. See id., 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “An additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” is indicative of integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determined that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –method to perform the steps of obtaining a predicted property value; obtaining a display method; generating a map; generating an image, and outputting the image. However, despite no computer being recited or implied in the claim, even if one was to assume a computer is required, the (assumed and implied) computer in each step is merely a generic computer performing generic computer functions of processing data, including receiving, detecting, and presenting data. This generic computer limitation is nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim only manipulates abstract data elements into another form, and does not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and, instead, uses (assumed) computer elements as tools in a conventional way to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above.
Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves any technology including AI/ML technology, - their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. None of the additional elements "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Also, the recited steps do not control or improve operation of a machine (MPEP 2106.05(a)), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), but, instead, require receiving, comparing, storing and outputting data.
As per obtaining a predicted property value; obtaining a display method; generating a map; generating an image, and outputting the image limitations, these recitations amount to mere data gathering and/or outputting, is insignificant post-solution or extra-solution component and represents nominal recitation of technology. Insignificant "post-solution” or “extra-solution" activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the method invented by the applicant. However, “(c) Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps. Use of a machine or apparatus that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would weigh against eligibility”. See Bilski, 138 S. Ct. at 3230 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, ___ (1978)). Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230.
Therefore, the method as a whole, outputs only data structure, - everything remains in the form of a code stored in the computer memory. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No).
Step 2B
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using (an assumed) computer to perform the recited steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claimed displaying steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The system would require a processor and memory in order to perform basic computer functions of accepting user input, storing information in a database, retrieving information from a database, and outputting said information. These components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality. Based on the Specification, the invention utilizes existing, conventional communication networks and generic processors, which can be found in mobile devices or desktop computers, conventional memory and display devices, and the functions performed by said generic computer elements are basic functions of a computer - performing a mathematical operation, receiving, storing and outputting data - have recognized by the courts as routine and conventional activity.
Further, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim, like a faster processor or more efficient memory, and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer; Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither. The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, comparing and transmitting data—see the Specification as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually; there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. “However, it is not apparent how appellant’s programmed digital computer can produce any synergistic result. Instead, the computer will simply do the job it is instructed to do. Where is there any surprising or unexpected result? The unlikelihood of any such result is merely one more reason why patents should not be granted in situations where the only novelty is in the programming of general purpose digital computers”. See Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [ 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784], 189 USPQ 449 (1976) and A P Tea Co. V. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [ 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162], 87 USPQ 303 (1950).
Furthermore, there is no transformation recited in the claim as understood in view of 35 USC 101. The steps of obtaining a predicted property value; obtaining a display method; generating a map; generating an image, and outputting the image merely represent abstract ideas which cannot meet the transformation test because they are not physical objects or substances. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963. Said steps are nothing more than mere manipulation or reorganization of data, which does not satisfy the transformation prong. It is further noted that the underlying idea of the recited steps could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind. Moreover, “We agree with the district court that the claimed process manipulates data to organize it in a logical way such that additional fraud tests may be performed. The mere manipulation or reorganization of data, however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.” and “Abele made clear that the basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium. Thus, merely claiming a software implementation of a purely mental process that could otherwise be performed without the use of a computer does not satisfy the machine prong of the machine-or-transformation test”. CyberSource, 659 F.3d 1057, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because, when considered separately and in combination, the claim elements do not add significantly more to the exception. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, the claim elements do not provide an improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; do not apply the judicial exception by use of a particular machine; do not effect a transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. None of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). As per “… automatic electronic health record documentation” recitations, these limitations do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers." Id., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment is, without more, insufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and is not eligible subject matter under § 101. (Step 2B: No).
Further, although the Examiner takes the steps recited in the independent claims as exemplary, the Examiner points out that limitations recited in dependent claims 2-7, 9-21 and 24 further narrow the abstract idea but do not make the claims any less abstract. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-21 and 24 each merely add further details of the abstract steps recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These claims "add nothing of practical significance to the underlying idea," and thus do not transform the claimed abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Because Applicant’s method claim 25, device claim 26, and CRM claims 27 and 28 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, they too are patent ineligi-ble under §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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Predicting the Thermodynamic Stability of Solids Combining Density Functional Theory and Machine Learning”, Schmidt et al, May 2017, pages 5090-5103 from IDS filed 1/12/2024 hereinafter referred to as Schmidt.
Claim 1:
Schmidt discloses An information display method comprising: obtaining a predicted property value of each of compounds; obtaining first display method information indicating a display method for the predicted property value; generating a map indicating the predicted property value of each of the compounds, according to the first display method information; and generating an image including the map, and outputting the image, wherein the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables among variables to be used in representing compositions of the compounds (page 5090-5095:machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules, or polymers and of dielectric properties…for solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds…in this article we will be concerned with solids and, in particular, with their stability and the prediction of new crystal phases…Fig. 2: Histogram of the distribution of Ehull for all the structures contained in the materials project database with an ICSD number. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…Fig 5: Histogram of the distribution of Eform for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…In Figure 3 we plot the histogram of the energy distances to the convex hull for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures).
Claim 2:
Schmidt discloses the first display method information indicates, as the display method for the predicted property value, at least one of a method for determining a color for indicating the predicted property value or a method for determining a display format for indicating the predicted property value (Figs 2, 3 and 5 all show a graph with a display format indicating the predicted value).
Claim 3:
Schmidt discloses The information display method according to claim 1, wherein the first display method information indicates, as the display method for the predicted property value, at least one of: (a) indicating a predicted property value identical to a reference value on the map by using a predetermined color or a predetermined shade of color;(b) indicating a predicted property value larger than the reference value by using a first range of color, and indicating a predicted property value smaller than the reference value by using a second range of color; (c) superimposing a boundary line on a boundary between a first region and a second region on the map, the first region being a region in which a predicted property value identical to the reference value is indicated, the second region being a region in which a predicted property value different from the reference value is indicated (Fig 3: the area within the distribution is colored in while the remaining area of the graph is not).,(d) indicating one of a third region and a fourth region on the map by using a predetermined color or a predetermined shade of color, the third region being a region in which a predicted property value that satisfies a specified condition is indicated, the fourth region being a region in which a predicted property value that does not satisfy the specified condition is indicated; or (e) superimposing a pattern of dots or stripes on one of the third region and the fourth region.
Claim 4:
Schmidt discloses the reference value is an average or a median of the predicted property values of the compounds, or is a value designated by a user (Fig 3 shows a labeled X and Y axis, labeled with values desired by the user publishing the graph).
Claim 5:
Schmidt discloses the generating of the map includes: identifying a gradient of the predicted property values to be indicated on the map; and superimposing an arrow on the map, the arrow indicating an orientation or a magnitude of the gradient (Figs 2, 3 and 5 each display a scale on the X and Y axis, the scale starting from zero and ending on the respective value of the particular axis, which is equivalent to the claimed arrow indicating an orientation of the gradient).
Claim 6:
Schmidt discloses obtaining the variables to be used in representing the compositions of the compounds and items of option data indicating possible values or elements of each of the variables, wherein in the obtaining of the predicted property value, for each of combinations of option data obtained by selecting one item of option data from the items of option data for each of the variables, the predicted property value of a compound having a composition corresponding to the combination is obtained (5090-5095, Figs 2, 3 and 5 each display a label on the X and Y axis, the labels representing the desired property value that is being presented in a graphical format, namely the energy distance to the convex hull for particular materials).
Claim 9:
Schmidt discloses in the obtaining of the predicted property value, the predicted property value of each of the compounds is obtained from at least one predictor for predicting a property value of a compound, the at least one predictor being stored in a predictor data base (pages 5090 and 5095: Machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules or polymers and of dielectric properties,10 in optimization of transition states, and in creation of pair potentials for use in molecular dynamics simulations, etc. For solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds …The crystal structure of all stable perovskites will be distributed through the Materials Project database,33 while the whole data set of cubic perovskites will be available in the NOMAD Repository).
Claim 25:
Schmidt discloses An information display method comprising: obtaining a predicted property value of each of compounds; and outputting an image including a map generated using the predicted property value obtained, wherein the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables to be used in representing a composition of a compound, and indicates the predicted property value of each of the compounds (page 5090-5095: machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules, or polymers and of dielectric properties…for solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds…in this article we will be concerned with solids and, in particular, with their stability and the prediction of new crystal phases…Fig. 2: Histogram of the distribution of Ehull for all the structures contained in the materials project database with an ICSD number. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…Fig 5: Histogram of the distribution of Eform for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…In Figure 3 we plot the histogram of the energy distances to the convex hull for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures).
Claim 26:
Schmidt discloses An information display device comprising: a processor; and a memory (Page 5095: We note that by deciding on a specific machine learning algorithm, one determines the model the computer uses), wherein using the memory, the processor: obtains a predicted property value of each of compounds; obtains first display method information indicating a display method for the predicted property value; and outputs an image including a map that is generated according to the first display method information and indicates the predicted property value of each of the compounds, and the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables among variables to be used in representing compositions of the compounds (page 5090-5095: machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules, or polymers and of dielectric properties…for solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds…in this article we will be concerned with solids and, in particular, with their stability and the prediction of new crystal phases…Fig. 2: Histogram of the distribution of Ehull for all the structures contained in the materials project database with an ICSD number. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…Fig 5: Histogram of the distribution of Eform for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…In Figure 3 we plot the histogram of the energy distances to the convex hull for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures).
Claim 27:
Schmidt discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program (5091: machine learning algorithms are discussed, the machine, as is well known, refers to a conventional computer) for causing a computer to execute: obtaining a predicted property value of each of compounds; obtaining first display method information indicating a display method for the predicted property value; generating a map indicating the predicted property value of each of the compounds, according to the first display method information; and generating an image including the map, and outputting the image, wherein the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables among variables to be used in representing compositions of the compounds (page 5090-5095: machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules, or polymers and of dielectric properties…for solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds…in this article we will be concerned with solids and, in particular, with their stability and the prediction of new crystal phases…Fig. 2: Histogram of the distribution of Ehull for all the structures contained in the materials project database with an ICSD number. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…Fig 5: Histogram of the distribution of Eform for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…In Figure 3 we plot the histogram of the energy distances to the convex hull for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures).
Claim 28:
Schmidt discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program (5091: machine learning algorithms are discussed, the machine, as is well known, refers to a conventional computer) for causing a computer to execute: obtaining a predicted property value of each of compounds; and outputting an image including a map generated using the predicted property value obtained, wherein the map includes a coordinate axis indicating each of at least two variables to be used in representing a composition of a compound, and indicates the predicted property value of each of the compounds (page 5090-5095: machine learning has already had a considerable success in the prediction of the properties of molecules, or polymers and of dielectric properties…for solids, one can also find applications to the determination of band gaps, or to predict the stability of new compounds…in this article we will be concerned with solids and, in particular, with their stability and the prediction of new crystal phases…Fig. 2: Histogram of the distribution of Ehull for all the structures contained in the materials project database with an ICSD number. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…Fig 5: Histogram of the distribution of Eform for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures. The bin size is 25 meV/atom…In Figure 3 we plot the histogram of the energy distances to the convex hull for all ≈250000 cubic perovskite structures).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Dunlavey (USPUB 7043415 B1).
Claim 7:
Schmidt discloses every feature of claim 1.
Schmidt, by itself, does not seem to completely teach when a non-utilized variable that is a variable other than the at least two variables to be used in the coordinate axes of the map is present among the variables, the first display method information indicates, as the display method for the predicted property value, displaying the predicted property value using the non-utilized variable.
The Examiner maintains that these features were previously well-known as taught by Dunlavey.
Dunlavey teaches when a non-utilized variable that is a variable other than the at least two variables to be used in the coordinate axes of the map is present among the variables, the first display method information indicates, as the display method for the predicted property value, displaying the predicted property value using the non-utilized variable (Col 2 ln 64-Col 3 ln 17: A graphical user interface, which allows a user to place and connect objects that represent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic elements, is presented. While the objects are placed and connected by a user, the objects are converted into an internal format, such as a parse tree, representing statements for the computational model under construction. These statements are then actively interpreted to generate a time-based simulation using the computational model, and one or more user-selected variables are plotted in a graph in real time, while the model is being constructed…the method further includes actively modifying the interpretation of the statements, either directly or by modifying the internal format, in response to user commands to modify variables and/or constants in the model under construction. The graph is thereby updated in light of the new variable information in real time. Additionally, in one embodiment, the plotting of the one or more user-selected variables retains a history of prior plots, thereby causing random variables in a model under construction to create fan like graphs, which visually demonstrates variability components in real time).
Schmidt and Dunlavey are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area, presenting material data in a graph.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Schmidt and Dunlavey before him or her, to combine the teachings of Schmidt and Dunlavey. The rationale for doing so would have been to obtain the benefit of providing a user with customizable display options.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Schmidt and Dunlavey to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record discusses aspects of the claimed invention, however the combination of cited prior art fails to teach the all of features claimed. The closest prior art of record, Schmidt (from IDS filed 1/12/2024) discloses every feature of the independent claims 1, 25, 26,27 and 28. (see above). Dunlavey (USPUB 7043415 B1) further teaches how to manage non-utilized variables and later modifying the variables to be displayed, displaying the previously non-utilized variables (see rejection of claim 7). The cited references, neither alone nor in combination, teach every feature of claims 8, and 10-24. The novel steps of the Instant Application thus distinguish the invention over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H ZUBERI whose telephone number is (571)270-7761. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-8PM.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached on 571-272-4128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED H ZUBERI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights