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 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 of Chinese Patent Application No. 202211248999.2, filed 12 Oct 2022 and Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0084257 filed 29 Jun 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of claims 1-20 is 12 Oct 2022.
For intervening prior art before the international filing date but after foreign priority date, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome a 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Applicant may provide an accurate English translation of the certified copy of the foreign application to perfect priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03 Oct 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Patent references CN109871553A, CN111243680A, and CN112733416A have no English translation or a concise explanation of the relevance has not been provided.
See MPEP 609.01 (B)(3) cited below:
(3) For non-English documents that are cited, the following must be provided:
(a) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, unless a complete translation is provided; and/or
(b) A written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, if it is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c).
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not
been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any
item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any
missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with
the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, “precision” in claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 will be interpreted to refer to floating-point precision used in scientific computing as defined in Bailey (Bailey 2005 Computing in Science and Engineering 7(3) pgs. 54-61).
For purposes of examination, “dequantize” in claims 4 and 14 will be interpreted to refer to converting a discrete set of steps or values into a continuous set of steps or values.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “processors configured to” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “precision” in claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 is used by the claims to mean setting a range, amount or coordinate position of data (as in floating-point precision for scientific computation), while the accepted meaning is “the quality of being exact” (Cambridge Dictionary). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “dequantized” in claims 4 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dequantized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally, Claim 11 limitation “processors configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see MPEP 2181 II(B)).
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already
implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links
them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure,
material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Considerations
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon:
Claims 1 and 11 recite setting precisions of first and second data.
Claims 3 and 13 recite receiving input data, segmenting an initial atom space and iteratively updating position coordinates.
Claims 4 and 14 recite iteratively updating comprising updating, quantifying and synchronizing force coordinates, and dequantizing synchronized force coordinates.
Claims 5 and 15 recite iteratively updating subdomains.
Claims 6 and 16 recite determining position, force and velocity coordinates.
Claims 7 and 17 recite determining position and velocity coordinates.
Claims 8 and 18 recite determining interatomic interaction potentials and force coordinates.
Claims 9 and 19 recite determining force coordinates and sum force coordinates.
Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. While claims 1-20 recite performing some aspects of the analysis “processor-implemented” or “apparatus comprising one or more processors,” there are no additional limitations that indicate that this analysis engine requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental process or mathematical concept in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. 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 if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2 Considerations
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a computer medium and/or use of a hardware processor. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites conducting a molecular dynamics simulation.
There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed system, method or storage medium require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The steps for conducting a molecular dynamics simulation are routine and conventional functions such as performing repetitive calculations and mere data extracting (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(2)). As such, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed system and method requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. 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. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The limitation for use of a computer-implemented system, one or more hardware processes, or use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage system amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way because the executable steps are so generically recited. MPEP 2106.05(d) discloses that a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eastman (Eastman et al. 2017 PLoS Computational Biology 13(7): e1005659).
Claims 1 and 11 recite molecular dynamics simulation, the method comprising: setting a precision of first data used for a molecular dynamics simulation to be a first precision; setting a precision of second data used for the molecular dynamics simulation to be a second precision that is different from the first precision; and conducting the molecular dynamics simulation based on the first data of the first precision and the second data of the second precision. Eastman discloses defining the forces acting on a molecular system, either by specifying them explicitly or by loading a force field definition from a file, computing forces and energies, running simulations and outputting results. (see §Extensibility and §Effect of precision)
Claims 2 and 12 recite the first data comprising either one or both of position coordinates and force coordinates of an atom, the second data comprising either one or both of a potential energy parameter and velocity coordinates of the atom, and the second precision comprises precision that is higher than the first precision. Eastman discloses Editing molecular models, such as by combining molecules together, adding or deleting atoms, building solvent boxes, etc.; defining the forces acting on a molecular system, either by specifying them explicitly or by loading a force field definition from a file (see §Extensibility).
Claims 3 and 13 1st elements recite the methods of claims 1 and 11, respectively, receiving input data comprising initial position coordinates of an atom and an interatomic initial interaction potential and segmenting an initial atom space corresponding to the initial position coordinates into a plurality of subdomains processed by a plurality of processes in a distributed environment. Eastman discloses reading input files, including standard formats like PDB or PDBx/mmCIF, as well as the proprietary formats used by applications such as Amber, CHARMM Gromacs, and Desmond (see §Extensibility).
Claims 3 and 13 2nd elements recite the methods of claims 1 and 11, respectively, the conducting of the molecular dynamics simulation comprising iteratively updating position coordinates, force coordinates, and velocity coordinates of each atom comprised in each of the plurality of subdomains through the plurality of processes based on the input data. Eastman discloses iteratively updating position, force and velocity coordinates via custom forces and custom integrators (see §Custom forces and §Custom integrators).
Claims 4 and 14 1st elements recite the plurality of subdomains comprising a first subdomain and a second subdomain neighboring to the first subdomain, the plurality of processes comprises a first process corresponding to the first subdomain and a second process corresponding to the second subdomain. Eastman discloses editing molecular models, such as by combining molecules together, adding or deleting atoms, building solvent boxes, etc. (see §Extensibility).
Claims 4 and 14 2nd elements recite the methods of claims 3 and 13, respectively, the iteratively updating comprising: updating force coordinates of an atom of the first subdomain and force coordinates of an atom of the second subdomain; parallelly quantify the force coordinates of the atom of the first subdomain and the force coordinates of the atom of the second subdomain; synchronizing the force coordinates of the atom of the first subdomain with the force coordinates of the atom of the second subdomain; and dequantizing synchronized force coordinates of the atom of the first subdomain and synchronized force coordinates of the atom of the second subdomain. Eastmans discloses iterative self-consistent field calculations which update, synchronize and dequantize force coordinates(see §Extensibility).
Claims 5 and 15 recite the methods of claim 3 and 13, respectively, wherein the iteratively updating comprises iteratively updating each of the plurality of subdomains. Eastman discloses iteratively updating subdomains (see §AMOEBA).
Claims 6 and 16 recite the methods of claims 3 and 13, respectively, wherein the iteratively updating of each of the plurality of subdomains comprises: determining position coordinates of the atom of a current update based on position coordinates of the atom of a previous update and velocity coordinates of the atom of the previous update; determining force coordinates of the atom based on the position coordinates of the atom in the current update and the force coordinates of the atom of the current update; and determining velocity coordinates of the atom of the current update based on velocity coordinates of the atom of a previous update and velocity coordinates of the atom of the previous update. Eastman discloses determining position, force and velocity coordinates of a current update based on a previous update (see §AMOEBA).
Claims 7 and 17 recite the methods of claim 6 and 16, respectively, wherein the determining of the position coordinates of the atom comprises determining position coordinates of the atom corresponding to a first update to be the initial position coordinates, and the determining of the velocity coordinates of the atom of the current update comprises determining the velocity coordinates of the atom through the interatomic initial interaction potential, wherein the velocity coordinates of the atom corresponds to the first update. Eastman discloses determining atom position and velocity through the interatomic initial interaction potential (see §Extensibility).
Claims 8 and 18 recite the methods of claims 6 and 16, respectively, wherein the determining of the force coordinates of the atom of the current update comprises: determining the interatomic interaction potential based on the position coordinates of the atom of the current update; and determining the force coordinates of the atom of the current update based on the interatomic interaction potential. Eastman discloses determining the force coordinates of the atom based on interatomic interaction potential (see §Extensibility).
Claims 9 and 19 recite the methods of claims 8 and 18, respectively, wherein, for each atom, the determining of the force coordinates of the atom of the current update based on the interatomic interaction potential comprises: determining a plurality of force coordinates applied to the atom by another atom based on the interatomic interaction potential; determining sum force coordinates of the plurality of force coordinates; and converting the sum force coordinates into force coordinates of the atom of the current update. Eastman discloses determining the force coordinates based on interatomic interaction potential comprising these features (see §Custom forces).
Claims 10 and 20 recite the methods of claims 9 and 19, wherein precision of the plurality of force coordinates and precision of the force coordinates of the atom of the current update are the first precision, precision of the sum force coordinates is the second precision, and the second precision comprises precision that is higher than the first precision. Eastman discloses precision of force coordinates changing values (see §Effect of precision).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hospital et al. 2015 Advances and Applications in Bioinformatics and Chemistry 8 pgs. 37-47.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Maranda S Cantrell whose telephone number is (571)270-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30-4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights