DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are currently presented for Examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner, to the extent that a legible copy could be found. In the IDS submitted 10/25/2026, legible NPL references were not submitted, and a legible copy could not be found online. As such these references have been given a strike through as not considered. It is suggested that a legible copy is submitted by Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an Ising model multiple times without properly referring back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computing device when the first recitation is an annealing computing device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a combinatorial optimization problem when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a material composition when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computed optical solution when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an Ising model multiple times without properly referring back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computing device when the first recitation is an annealing computing device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a combinatorial optimization problem when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a material composition when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computed optical solution when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an Ising model multiple times without properly referring back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computing device when the first recitation is an annealing computing device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a combinatorial optimization problem when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a material composition when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computed optical solution when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites an Ising model multiple times without properly referring back to the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computing device when the first recitation is an annealing computing device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a combinatorial optimization problem when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a material composition when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the computed optical solution when it is the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 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.
Regarding claim 3, the following variables are undefined, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear:
m in claim 3
j in claim 3
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Regarding claims 1-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 7 is directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-8 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 6-8 recite the abstract idea of calculating a material composition using equations, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " receiving an input of a target value of at least one physical property;” covers mental processes including observing a dataset. Additionally, the limitation of “converting a mathematical expression that formulates a combinatorial optimization problem of a material composition that asymptotically approaches the target value from a mixed material of materials having known physical property values, into the Ising model in a data format usable by the computing device, the computing device computing an optimum solution of the material composition asymptotically approaching the target value, using the Ising model; and” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation and then solving the equation, or alternatively a mental processes including setting up an equation to evaluate and evaluating if the solution of the equation reaches a target value. Additionally, the limitation of “outputting the computed optical solution of the material composition asymptotically approaching the target value,” covers mathematical concepts in the form of solving the equation, or alternatively a mental processes including writing down the solution of the equation. Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the mathematical expression formulates the material composition that asymptotically approaches the target value, so that the optimum solution is less likely computed as a number of materials included in the material composition increases, and is more likely computed as the number of materials included in the material composition decreases.” covers mathematical concepts in the form of an equation that is increasing difficult as the number of calculations increases, and decreasingly difficult as the number of calculations decreases. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept in the form of relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations, or alternatively a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-5 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 4-8, the additional element of “an annealing computing device configured to use an Ising model”, as well as “a material composition searching device configured to convert a combinatorial optimization problem of a material composition asymptotically approaching a target physical property value into an Ising model and cause the computing device to solve the combinatorial optimization problem,” in claims 1 and 6-8, as well as “storage device” and “program”, in claims 1, 7 and 8, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer” in claim 8, as well as “a processor” in claims 1 and 7, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 6-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 4-8, the additional element of “an annealing computing device configured to use an Ising model”, as well as “a material composition searching device configured to convert a combinatorial optimization problem of a material composition asymptotically approaching a target physical property value into an Ising model and cause the computing device to solve the combinatorial optimization problem,” in claims 1 and 6-8, as well as “storage device” and “program”, in claims 1, 7 and 8, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer” in claim 8, as well as “a processor” in claims 1 and 7, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining an energy function, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the equation used by the method, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further how the equation is used of claim 3, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining a user selection that defines an ideal output material, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts” or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art references of record are Imanaka and Kiziltas. These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including wherein the mathematical expression formulates the material composition that asymptotically approaches the target value, so that the optimum solution is less likely computed as a number of materials included in the material composition increases, and is, more likely computed as the number of materials included in the material composition decreases in combination with the remaining limitations. Therefore, claims 1-8 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 and 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Svedberg, M., et al. "Optimization of Pr0. 9Ca0. 1MnO3 thin films and observation of coexisting spin-glass and ferromagnetic phases at low temperature.": Also teaches material optimization using simulated annealing and an Ising Model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights