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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 November 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 should depend on Claim 5 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-10) recite “A method for predicting a potential energy of a multicomponent material, comprising encoding a structural information of a multicomponent material in which eigenvector values for each element are calculated using an atom-centered symmetry function (ACSF) of a structural information of atoms constituting the multicomponent material; calculating a bond order potential (BOP) parameter for each element using the calculated eigenvector value as an input value and using a different artificial neural network model for each type of atom to construct a physics-informed artificial neural network (PINN) model; calculating a bond order potential value for each element to construct a potential energy surface (PES); and performing structural optimization or physical property prediction of the multicomponent material using a potential energy surface.”
Claims 1-10, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “encoding a structural information of a multicomponent material in which eigenvector values for each element are calculated using an atom-centered symmetry function (ACSF) of a structural information of atoms constituting the multicomponent material; calculating a bond order potential (BOP) parameter for each element using the calculated eigenvector value as an input value and using a different artificial neural network model for each type of atom to construct a physics-informed artificial neural network (PINN) model; calculating a bond order potential value for each element to construct a potential energy surface (PES); and performing structural optimization or physical property prediction of the multicomponent material using a potential energy surface.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “encoding a structural information of a multicomponent material in which eigenvector values for each element are calculated using an atom-centered symmetry function (ACSF) of a structural information of atoms constituting the multicomponent material; calculating a bond order potential (BOP) parameter for each element using the calculated eigenvector value as an input value and using a different artificial neural network model for each type of atom to construct a physics-informed artificial neural network (PINN) model; calculating a bond order potential value for each element to construct a potential energy surface (PES); and performing structural optimization or physical property prediction of the multicomponent material using a potential energy surface.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-10 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0135] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-10 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noh et al (US 12,511,526) disclose a method for predicting a molecular structure that includes: preparing a learning data set including first learning data including an eigenvector value and a quantum mechanics calculation value for a monoatomic and molecular structural model, a bulk structural model, a slab structural model, and a nanoparticle structural model of a material including a plurality of elements; learning an artificial neural network using the learning data set to obtain a potential value; and predicting a molecular structure of another material by using the potential value. Rei et al (US 11,514,349) disclose an apparatus that includes a geometric aggregator that receives data for a set of time periods and a location. The data has a first set of first metric values and a set of second metric values for each time period and lacks a mixture of Gaussian distributions. The geometric aggregator calculates a geometric aggregation of the data for each time period to produce a first metric value from a second set of first metric values, having a mixture of Gaussian distributions. The apparatus also includes a Gaussian mixture model that predicts a set of Gaussian distributions, each uniquely associated with a season, within a set of histogram values for the data based on the second set of first metric values. Fan et al (US 10,923,214) disclose a method that includes receiving an input file of a compound; implementing a neural network to determine molecular configurations of the compound based on the input file and a plurality of molecular descriptors associated with the compound; generating, using the neural network, one or more three-dimensional (3D) models of the compound based on the determined molecular configurations of the compound; determining, using the neural network, energy scores of the one or more 3D models when the compound is docked into a protein; and determining a property of the docked compound based on the energy scores. Qiao et al (US 2022/0165364) disclose a system and a method for determining molecular structures based on atomic-orbital-based features, which can be utilized in combination with machine-learning methods to predict accurate properties, such as quantum mechanical energy, of molecular systems.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853