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 response to the communication filed on March 22, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on March 22, 2024 has been entered.
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. Regarding the claim 1, it recites constructing a prediction model by learning training data in which information related to a composition of a material is set as an explanatory variable and a value of a physical property of the material is set as an objective variable; calculating a predicted value of the physical property by inputting, into the prediction model, prediction data for newly searching for a composition; calculating an influence degree of each explanatory variable on prediction by using the training data and the prediction model; calculating a weighted distance of the prediction data with respect to the training data by using the influence degree; and displaying a relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance, and outputting corresponding prediction data as a search candidate
The claim recited the limitation of calculating a predicted value of the physical property by inputting, into the prediction model, prediction data for newly searching for a composition, calculating an influence degree of each explanatory variable on prediction by using the training data and the prediction model, calculating a weighted distance of the prediction data with respect to the training data by using the influence degree as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can calculate a predicted value as claimed by thinking in brain, if necessary user can also use physical aid such as pencil and paper. Hence, the limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Hence, these limitations are mental process.
The claim recited two additional element: constructing a prediction model…… and displaying a relationship …. The construction step as recited amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Similarly, the displaying step as recited is nothing but data processing/manipulation and outputting which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim directed to the abstract idea.
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 constructing and displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the calculating of the weighted distance includes scaling the weighted distance to a value between zero and one, inclusive, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the prediction data are a combination of information related to the composition exhaustively generated according to a constraint condition of a step size or a composition ratio that is set in advance, and wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes displaying a plurality of said relationships between the said calculated predicted values and the said weighted distances, by repeating the calculating of the predicted value of the physical property to the calculating of the weighted distance, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of grouping the predicted values by the weighted distances, and wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes dividing the prediction data into groups and output the divided prediction data, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes outputting corresponding prediction data as search candidates in an order in which the predicted value is higher for each of the groups, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein, the grouping is performed by equally dividing the weighted distances by a predetermined value between zero and one, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein, the grouping is performed by dividing the weighted distance between zero and one, such that a number of the predicted values in a group after the division is identical, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of wherein in the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance, a number of the prediction data to be output as the search candidate is set by a user, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of calculating an acquisition function Acq(X.sub.i) with respect to the predicted value and the weighted distance calculated from the prediction data by using the following Equation (1); and outputting corresponding prediction data as the search candidates in an order in which the calculated acquisition function is higher, Acq(Xi)=(1-sg)*f(Xi)+sg*Di(1) (0≤sg≤1) where X.sub.i is the i-th prediction data, f(X.sub.i) is a predicted value of X.sub.i scaled to a value between zero and one, inclusive, s.sub.g is a weighting factor in the g-th group, and D.sub.i is the weighted distance of X.sub.i, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of composition search. The claim recites the limitations of performing an experiment based on the information related to the composition of the prediction data output as the search candidate in the outputting, to obtain a value of the physical property; and adding the information related to the composition corresponding to the obtained value of the physical property to the training data, wherein processing of constructing the prediction model by using the training data to which data is added in the constructing the prediction model to processing of obtaining the value of the physical property in the obtaining the value of the physical property are repeated until the obtained value of the physical property reaches a predetermined target value, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210357546 A1) in the view of Tsou et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210041454 A1)
As to claim 1 Okuno teaches a composition search method for a material, comprising:
constructing a prediction model by learning training data in which information related to a composition of a material is set as an explanatory variable and a value of a physical property of the material is set as an objective variable (paragraph [0014], [0035, ][0037]-[0038]: prediction learned model or a set of rules based on statistical analysis, the property prediction learned model being a model on which machine learning has been performed by using the predetermined composition and the predetermined manufacturing condition, and the property of the material having the predetermined composition that is manufactured under the predetermined manufacturing condition, as training data);
calculating a predicted value of the physical property by inputting, into the prediction model, prediction data for newly searching for a composition (paragraph [0036]-[0039]: The material search apparatus 101 is preferably an apparatus for determining, based on a composition and a manufacturing condition of a material, whether a property of a material having the composition that is manufactured under the manufacturing condition meets a property required for the material);
calculating an influence degree of each explanatory variable on prediction by using the training data and the prediction model (paragraph [0077]: the manufacturing determining unit 603 may determine the probability of being manufacturable (e.g., a level indicating whether the manufacturability is high or low). The manufacturing determining unit 603 may store the composition of the material determined to be manufacturable in a memory so that the output unit 609 can refer to the determined composition of the material); and
outputting corresponding prediction data as a search candidate (paragraph [0083]: The property determining unit 607 may determine whether the property predicted by the property prediction unit 605 meets the required property obtained by the required property obtaining unit 606 and the property determining unit 607 may store the composition of the material determined to meet the required property in a memory so that the output unit 609 can refer to the composition).
Okuno does not explicitly disclose but Tsou teaches calculating a weighted distance of the prediction data with respect to the training data by using the influence degree (paragraph [0123]: “Performance score,” as used herein, refers broadly to the distances between predicted values and actual values in the training data.); and
displaying a relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance (paragraph [0123]: “Performance score,” as used herein, refers broadly to the distances between predicted values and actual values in the training data. This is expressed as a number between 0-100%, with higher values indicating the predicted value is closer to the real value. Typically, a higher score means the model performs better).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Okuno by adding above limitation as taught by Tsou to improve HLA peptide fragmentation prediction and associated peptide identification accuracy (Tsou, paragraph [0006]).
As to claim 2 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 1. Tsou teaches wherein the calculating of the weighted distance includes scaling the weighted distance to a value between zero and one, inclusive (paragraph [0123]).
As to claim 3 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 1. Okuno teaches wherein the prediction data are a combination of information related to the composition exhaustively generated according to a constraint condition of a step size or a composition ratio that is set in advance, and wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes displaying a plurality of said relationships between the said calculated predicted values and the said weighted distances, by repeating the calculating of the predicted value of the physical property to the calculating of the weighted distance (paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 4 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 3. Tsou teaches comprising grouping the predicted values by the weighted distances, and wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes dividing the prediction data into groups and output the divided prediction data (paragraph [0123], [0082]).
As to claim 5 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 4. Okuno teaches wherein the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance includes outputting corresponding prediction data as search candidates in an order in which the predicted value is higher for each of the groups (paragraph [0083]).
As to claim 6 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 4. Tsou teaches wherein, the grouping is performed by equally dividing the weighted distances by a predetermined value between zero and one (paragraphs [0122]-[0124]).
As to claim 7 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 4. Tsou teaches wherein, the grouping is performed by dividing the weighted distance between zero and one, such that a number of the predicted values in a group after the division is identical (paragraph [0151]).
As to claim 8 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 3. Tsou teaches wherein in the displaying of the relationship between the predicted value and the weighted distance, a number of the prediction data to be output as the search candidate is set by a user (paragraph [0129]-0130).
As to claim 9 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 4. Okuno teaches calculating an acquisition function Acq(X.sub.i) with respect to the predicted value and the weighted distance calculated from the prediction data by using the following Equation (1); and outputting corresponding prediction data as the search candidates in an order in which the calculated acquisition function is higher, Acq(Xi)=(1-sg)*f(Xi)+sg*Di(1) (0≤sg≤1) where X.sub.i is the i-th prediction data, f(X.sub.i) is a predicted value of X.sub.i scaled to a value between zero and one, inclusive, s.sub.g is a weighting factor in the g-th group, and D.sub.i is the weighted distance of X.sub.i (paragraphs [0073]-[0075]).
As to claim 10 Okuno together with Tsou teaches a method according to claim 3. Okuno teaches performing an experiment based on the information related to the composition of the prediction data output as the search candidate in the outputting, to obtain a value of the physical property; and adding the information related to the composition corresponding to the obtained value of the physical property to the training data, wherein processing of constructing the prediction model by using the training data to which data is added in the constructing the prediction model to processing of obtaining the value of the physical property in the obtaining the value of the physical property are repeated until the obtained value of the physical property reaches a predetermined target value (paragraph [0065]-[0067]).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights