DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/23/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
“a computer” is a high level of generality.
executing a structure relaxation calculation in which a density functional theory calculation of repeatedly updating an electron density is executed a plurality of times
such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until a first condition that represents that a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation.
Abstract idea
math/mental process
“executing a structure relaxation calculation ~ ” is a math process related to data processing itself and/or execute a software program related to a model of noise emissions.
“the electron density is repeatedly updated until a first condition ~” is a math
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “executing a structure relaxation calculation in which a density functional theory calculation of repeatedly updating an electron density is executed a plurality of times such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until a first condition that represents that a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the updated electron density based on the first condition (i.e., a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation), which is indicative of mathematical concept. (See paragraphs 0033-0037, 0096-0104 and 0118-0127 in the instant application).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a computer to perform a math and/or mental process of “executing a structure relaxation calculation in which a density functional theory calculation of repeatedly updating an electron density is executed a plurality of times such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until a first condition that represents that a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation”. The computer is a high level of generality to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component, and it does not present their specific structures/features to perform the claimed features for executing a structure relaxation calculation to thereby repeatedly update electron density. There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
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, using the computer to perform “executing a structure relaxation calculation in which a density functional theory calculation of repeatedly updating an electron density is executed a plurality of times such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until a first condition that represents that a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-10, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitations recited in claims 2-8 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the updated electron density based on the first or second conditions which are indicative of mathematical concepts/values used for mathematical calculations related to the electron density using a mathematical equation (i.e., a Kohn-Sham equation). (See paragraphs 0033-0037, 0096-0104 and 0118-0127 in the instant application). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-8, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the memory and the processor are high level of generalities to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component, and they do not present their specific structures/features to perform the claimed features for executing a structure relaxation calculation to thereby repeatedly update electron density.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 5-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 4918683 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “JP`683”).
Regarding Claim 1, JP`683 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer (Fig. 1, electronic state calculation device 10 including a CPU 11) to execute a process (“The CPU 11 controls each part of the hardware described above by loading a control program stored in the ROM 13 onto the RAM 14 and executing it” in page 2 of English machine translation) comprising:
executing a structure relaxation calculation in which a density functional theory calculation of repeatedly updating an electron density is executed a plurality of times such that the electron density is repeatedly updated (At least pages 3-4 teach selecting a calculation program to calculate one electron density using Khon-Sham equation and Cone-Sham theory, “the electronic state calculation apparatus 10 selects a calculation method by selecting a calculation program stored in the calculation program storage area 17a (step S23), and uses the selected calculation method to calculate one electron density … The quantum state given by the Khon-Sham equation is expressed … The Cone-Sham theory is introduced on the basis of the density functional theory” in page 3 of English machine translation; “the electronic state calculation apparatus 10 estimates the initial electron density based on the normal cone-sham theory (step S31), and calculates the initial effective potential and the initial local orbit (steps S32 and S33)” in page 4 of English machine translation) until a first condition that represents that a variation rate of total electron energy based on the electron density updated last is equal to or lower than a first threshold value is satisfied in at least one time among the plurality of times in the structure relaxation calculation (At least pages 9-10 teach determining/calculating an initial condition with which the one electron density are reproduced (i.e., repeatedly calculated) based on a condition, “Obtaining parameters describing the model so that two fluctuations obtained by executing a calculation program based on the calculation method of the many-body electron system and a calculation program based on the extended cone-sham theory are substantially equal; An electronic state calculation method, wherein the electronic state is obtained using an optimization method based on the extended cone-sham theory with the model determined by the obtained parameter as an initial condition”).
Regarding Claim 5, JP`683 teaches wherein the density functional theory calculation is a process of repeatedly updating the electron density by using a Kohn-Sham equation capable of calculating one-electron wave function (at least pages 2 and 12-13 teach a Kohn-Sham theory, “Computer program characterized Rukoto to execute the step of calculating the electronic state in the CPU in computer was determined model using an optimization method based on the extended Kohn-Sham theory as initial conditions. … to execute the steps in a computer to calculate an electron state to the CPU using an optimization method based it was allowed to decision model in the extended Kohn-Sham theory”, “The electronic state calculation apparatus 10 estimates the initial electron density based on the normal cone-sham theory (step S31)”).
Regarding Claim 6, JP`683 teaches wherein the density functional theory calculation is a process of repeatedly updating an electron density at each point in a designated space (At least pages 3-4 teach selecting a calculation program to calculate one electron density, and at least pages 9-10 and claim 2 teach reproducing (i.e., repeatedly calculated) the electron density regarding electrons on a local orbit (i.e., each point in a designated space) based on a condition, “Obtaining parameters describing the model so that two fluctuations obtained by executing a calculation program based on the calculation method of the many-body electron system and a calculation program based on the extended cone-sham theory are substantially equal; An electronic state calculation method, wherein the electronic state is obtained using an optimization method based on the extended cone-sham theory with the model determined by the obtained parameter as an initial condition”; “2. The electronic state calculation method according to claim 1, wherein the physical quantity is a quantity described by a numerical operator or a generation / annihilation operator regarding electrons on a local orbit” in claim 2 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8, JP`683 teaches wherein the one time is a first time (Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-35, in particular Col. 19 lines 27-35 and Col. 40 line 59- Col. 41 line 51 teach calculating the electron density under a condition (i.e., difference between them by making use of average rate of change) at a specific time).
Regarding Claim 9, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, it is an apparatus type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
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 2, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP`683 in view of Onga et al. (US 6185472 B1, hereinafter referred to as “Onga”).
Regarding Claim 2, JP`683 fails to explicitly disclose, but Onga teaches wherein in the executing, the structure relaxation calculation is executed such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until at least one of the first condition and a second condition that represents that a difference between the electron density updated last and the electron density updated immediately before is equal to or lower than a second threshold value is satisfied in at least the one time (Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-21 teach calculating the electron density under a condition (i.e., difference between them by making use of average rate of change), “it can be executed to find a certain frame of table into which desired conditions (r.sub.ij, .theta..sub.ijk, and r.sub.jk) are put and also to supplement the contents therein. Thus, first potential under the desired conditions (r.sub.ij, .theta..sub.ijk, and r.sub.jk) could be calculated, but actually force on this point is desired and must be calculated. The inventors have calculated potential on another point which is slightly deviated from the certain point according to similar procedures, and then force has been calculated from difference between them by making use of average rate of change, i.e., by differentiation”).
JP`683 and Onga are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of calculating an electron density and executing variation calculation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP`683 to incorporate the teachings of Onga by providing operations for repeatedly calculating/updating the electron density based the conditions indicative of a difference between the electron densities, taught by Onga at least at Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-21.
Regarding Claim 3, JP`683 fails to explicitly disclose, but Onga teaches wherein in the executing, the structure relaxation calculation is executed such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until at least one of the first condition and the second condition is satisfied at each time before a specific time among the plurality of times, and the electron density is repeatedly updated until the second condition is satisfied at each time after the specific time among the plurality of times (Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-35, in particular Col. 19 lines 27-35 and Col. 40 line 59- Col. 41 line 51 teach calculating the electron density under a condition (i.e., difference between them by making use of average rate of change) at a specific time, “As a result, it takes about 350 times as long by the referring type program under the conditions that the single crystal substrate consists of 1600 Si atoms, absolute temperature is 300 K, and external pressure is 1 atm. As may be appreciated from the above, the higher order cyclic partial differentiation method proposed by the inventors is advantageous. Also, in the referring type program, different data table must be prepared every time when different atoms are to be calculated”; “a specific diffusion time is appropriately divided until the (t.sub.n+1)th time and solutions are successively acquired from time t.sub.1 to time t.sub.n+1. Therein, these are linearized by using a Newton system in respective times t.sub.1, t2, . . . , t.sub.n+1 to advance the calculation”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP`683 to incorporate the teachings of Onga by providing operations for repeatedly calculating/updating the electron density based the conditions indicative of a difference between the electron densities and at a specific time among the plurality of times, taught by Onga at least at Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-35, in particular Col. 19 lines 27-35 and Col. 40 line 59- Col. 41 line 51.
Regarding Claim 7, JP`683 fails to explicitly disclose, but Onga teaches wherein in the executing, the structure relaxation calculation is executed such that the electron density is repeatedly updated until a second condition that represents that a difference between the electron density updated last and the electron density updated immediately before is equal to or lower than a second threshold value is satisfied at each time other than the one time among the plurality of times (Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-35, in particular Col. 19 lines 27-35 and Col. 40 line 59- Col. 41 line 51 teach calculating the electron density under a condition (i.e., difference between them by making use of average rate of change) at each time, “it can be executed to find a certain frame of table into which desired conditions (r.sub.ij, .theta..sub.ijk, and r.sub.jk) are put and also to supplement the contents therein. Thus, first potential under the desired conditions (r.sub.ij, .theta..sub.ijk, and r.sub.jk) could be calculated, but actually force on this point is desired and must be calculated. The inventors have calculated potential on another point which is slightly deviated from the certain point according to similar procedures, and then force has been calculated from difference between them by making use of average rate of change, i.e., by differentiation”; “As a result, it takes about 350 times as long by the referring type program under the conditions that the single crystal substrate consists of 1600 Si atoms, absolute temperature is 300 K, and external pressure is 1 atm. As may be appreciated from the above, the higher order cyclic partial differentiation method proposed by the inventors is advantageous. Also, in the referring type program, different data table must be prepared every time when different atoms are to be calculated”; “a specific diffusion time is appropriately divided until the (t.sub.n+1)th time and solutions are successively acquired from time t.sub.1 to time t.sub.n+1. Therein, these are linearized by using a Newton system in respective times t.sub.1, t2, . . . , t.sub.n+1 to advance the calculation”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP`683 to incorporate the teachings of Onga by providing operations for repeatedly calculating/updating the electron density based the conditions indicative of a difference between the electron densities and at a specific time among the plurality of times, taught by Onga at least at Col. 12 lines 22-67 and Col. 19 lines12-35, in particular Col. 19 lines 27-35 and Col. 40 line 59- Col. 41 line 51.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OHTA (US 20240120035 A1) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium stores a program for causing a computer to execute a process, the process includes in repeat calculation of electron density of a substance by a self-consistent field method that uses a specific number of wave functions according to cutoff energy, executing a second electron density calculation at an (N+1)-th time (N is an integer greater than or equal to 1) by applying second cutoff energy of a value smaller than first cutoff energy applied to an first electron density calculation at an N-th time, determining whether the electron density obtained by the second electron density calculation at the (N+1)-th time satisfies a predetermined condition, and outputting the value of the second cutoff energy in a case where the condition is not satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights