DETAILED ACTION
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.
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, 2, 5-7, 9-13, 17, 18, 21-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process or apparatus.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
An apparatus for determining a thermal stability of a target material, the apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire particle information of the target material;
acquire a molecular structure of the target material based on the particle information;
acquire structural information of the target material from the molecular structure; and
determine the thermal stability of the target material based on the structural information.
The limitation underline can be considered to describe a mental process or mathematical calculation, namely an analysis of particle and molecular information to determine the thermal stability of a material.
The additional limitation of “acquire particle information” is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, required to implement the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitations of “one or more processors” and “memory storing instructions” do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 1. Therefore claim 17 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-13 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “acquiring an energy optimized molecular structure” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 2 additionally recites “atom information” and “molecule information” which only determines what information is used in the acquiring molecular structure abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “a core moiety” and “at least one functional group” which only determines what information is used in the acquiring molecular structure abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 6 additionally recites “a radius of gyration” and “an asphericity” which only determines what information is acquired by the acquire structural information abstract idea, as such it does not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “calculating a gyration tensor”, “calculating the structural information”, and “the gyration tensor is a matrix” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “diagonalizing the gyration tensor”, “calculating the radius of gyration”, and “calculating the asphericity” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 10 adds the recited “comparing the structural information to a threshold” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 11 adds the recited “determining that the thermal stability is in a first range” and “determining that the thermal stability is in a second range” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 12 adds the recited “pre-trained learning model” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 13 adds the recited “a machine learning model” to the abstract idea limitations. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-13 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 18, 21-23, and 25-29 are analogous to claims 2, 5-7, and 9-13, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17, 18, 21-22, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Prediction of Glass Transition Temperature (Tg) of Some Compounds in Organic Electroluminescent Devices with Their Molecular Properties”, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. Vol 42, January 2002) in view of Di (CN 114913914 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches an apparatus for determining a thermal stability of a target material (Abstract: “the quantitative structure-property relationship between descriptors representing the molecular structure and glass transition temperature”), the apparatus comprising:
acquire particle information of the target material (Tables 1 and 2; Computation Section A. Database Construction: “The 103 organic compounds summarized in Tables 1 and 2”. The examiner notes that Tables 1 and 2 contain particle information of the organic compounds);
acquire a molecular structure of the target material based on the particle information (Computation A. Database Construction: “the physically realistic three-dimensional structures of the molecules are necessary”);
acquire structural information of the target material from the molecular structure (Computation B. Calculation of Molecular Descriptors: “86 descriptors were calculated for each compound. These 86 descriptors can be classified into five groups: topological, spatial, electrostatic, thermodynamic, and structural descriptors”); and
determine the thermal stability of the target material based on the structural information (Conclusion: “A QSPR model was used to predict Tg of organic compounds with properties derived from the structures of molecules”).
Kim does not explicitly teach one or more processors and a memory storing instructions.
Di teaches one or more processors (Para 46: “Processor”) and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to execute the instructions (Para 47: “A memory that stores executable code, which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the method described above”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim with the invention of Di by having the method of Kim be executed by the computer of Di. Doing so would improve the efficiency of the molecular analysis of Kim.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the instruction to acquire the molecular structure of the target material using the particle information comprises acquiring an energy-optimized molecular structure based on the particle information (Computation A. Database Construction: “The three-dimensional structures of the compounds were obtained by an energy minimization procedure”), and
wherein the particle information comprises atom information of the target material and molecule information of the target material (Fig. 1; The examiner notes that the compounds depicted in Fig. 1 display both atom information and molecule information).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the particle information comprises a core moiety forming the target material and at least on function group that is capable of being substituted to at least one derivative by bonding with the core moiety (Fig. 1; The examiner draws specific attention to AODF 1-5 and Bis[2`-(2,4,6-triphenly-1,3,4-triazinly)]ethers 3a-e. These two compounds show core moieties with different function groups capable of being bonded onto the core).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the structural information comprises at least one of a radius of gyration (Rg) (Table 3; Computation B. Calculation of Molecular Descriptors: “The radius of gyration, density, and volume were introduced as the spatial descriptors”) or an asphericity (As).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the instruction further comprises comparing the structural information to a threshold value.
Di teaches comparing the structural information to a threshold value (Para 18: “The change in activity before and after the first heating is compared with the preset fold threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim with the invention of Di by comparing the structural information of Kim to a threshold in the manner taught by Di. Doing so would allow for improved accuracy when using the structural information to determine thermal stability.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the instruction further comprises determining thermal stability of the target material by inputting the structural information to a pre-trained learning model (Results And Discussion: “The best correlation for Tg expressed with the MLR equation contains seven descriptors form five descriptor groups”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 12, and Kim further teaches wherein the pre-trained learning model is a machine learning model configured to use at least one experimental data point according to a thermal stability experiment as training data (Results And Discussion: “Among 103 compounds in the data set, 81 compounds were randomly selected for the training set (Table 1)”).
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are analogous to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are analogous to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations of claim 21 are analogous to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are analogous to claim 6.
Regarding Claim 26, the limitations of claim 26 are analogous to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 28, the limitations of claim 28 are analogous to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 29, the limitations of claim 29 are analogous to claim 13.
Claims 7, 9, 11, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeong in view of Di as applied to claims 1, 10, 17, and 23 above, and further in view of Gruy (“Inertia tensor as morphological descriptor for aggregation dynamics”, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, Volume 482, 2015).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 1, but Kim and Di do not explicitly teach wherein the instruction configured to acquire the structural information from the molecular structure comprises:
calculating a gyration tensor based on the molecular structure, and
calculating the structural information based on the gyration tensor, wherein the structural information includes at least one of a radius of gyration (Rg) or an asphericity (As),
wherein the gyration tensor is a matrix including a mass and position vectors of atoms.
Gruy teaches calculating a gyration tensor based on the molecular structure (Introduction: “The inertia tensor is defined by the expression”; Eq. 1. The examiner notes the claimed gyration tensor includes mass and as such would be anticipated by an inertia tensor), and
calculating the structural information based on the gyration tensor, wherein the structural information includes at least one of a radius of gyration (Rg) or an asphericity (As) (Introduction: “The gyration radius and anisotropy factor are defined as”; Eq. 4 and Eq. 5),
wherein the gyration tensor is a matrix including a mass and position vectors of atoms (Introduction: “Investigators defined two quantities: inertia tensor and gyration tensor. The first one considers the mass and the position vector distributions inside the particle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim in view of Di with the information of Gruy by modifying how the structural information of Kim is calculated by using the gyration tensor of Gruy. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the structural information of Kim.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Di and Gruy teach the limitations of claim 7, but Kim and Di do not explicitly teach wherein the instruction configured to calculate the structural information form the molecular structure further comprises: diagonalizing the gyration tensor, so as to express the gyration tensor with a plurality of eigenvalues; calculating the radius of gyration using the plurality of eigenvalues, and calculating the asphericity based on the plurality of eigenvalues.
Gruy teaches wherein the instruction configured to calculate the structural information form the molecular structure further comprises:
diagonalizing the gyration tensor, so as to express the gyration tensor with a plurality of eigenvalues (Introduction: “The diagonalization of I leads to”; Eq. 3);
calculating the radius of gyration using the plurality of eigenvalues (Introduction: “Then, the gyration radius … are defined as”; Eq. 4), and
calculating the asphericity based on the plurality of eigenvalues (Introduction: “define the anisotropy factor also named the asphericity by”; Eq. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim in view of Di and Gruy with the method of Gruy by having the structural information of Kim be calculated with the calculations of Gruy. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the structural information of Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Di teach the limitations of claim 10, but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the instruction further comprises: determining that the thermal stability is in a first range when a radius of gyration and an asphericity exceed a first threshold and a second threshold, respectively, and determining that the thermal stability is in a second range when the radius of gyration and the asphericity exceed are equal to or less than the first threshold and the second threshold, respectively, wherein the first range is greater than the second range.
Gruy teaches radius of gyration and asphericity (Eq. 4 and Eq. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim in view of Di with the structural information of Gruy by including the asphericity of Gruy in the prediction of glass transition temperature of Kim. Doing so would improve the accuracy of the prediction by having further information of the structure and shape of the compound.
Di teaches comparing the structural information to a threshold value (Para 18: “The change in activity before and after the first heating is compared with the preset fold threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kim in view of Di and Gruy with the threshold of Di by comparing the structural information of Kim with to a threshold in the manner taught by Di. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed invention is a result of routine optimization. The number of thresholds and which structural information is used in determining thermal stability is a result of routine optimization. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have decided upon appropriate structural information and thresholds through routine elimination and optimization when applying the teachings of Di and Gruy to Kim.
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations of claim 23 are analogous to claim 7.
Regarding Claim 25, the limitations of claim 25 are analogous to claim 9.
Regarding Claim 27, the limitations of claim 27 are analogous to claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (KR 102284532 B1) teaches predicting molecular activity by analyzing structural information of the molecule (Abstract).
Gao (CN 111785332 A) teaches predicting thermal stability by using a genetic algorithm (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights