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 . The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The previous Examiner is no longer prosecuting this application. Examiner Juan Carlos Ochoa is taking over the prosecution of this application.
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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the term "feasible" in line 26 is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "feasible" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The subject matter description of “feasib*” in the specification amounts to repetitions of “feasible”, i.e. no definition of “feasible” is elaborated in the description. For example, (underline emphasis added):
'[0069]… In block 930, process 900 further provides for utilizing, by the computing device, a physics constraint model (e.g., physics-aware constraints component (or model), 830, FIG. 8) to determine whether the best-fit proposed industry design process is feasible…'
As to claim(s) 11, 17, the same deficiency applies.
As to claim 1, the term "compliance" in line 26 is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "compliance" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The subject matter description of “complian*” in the specification amounts to (underline emphasis added):
'[0006]… the physics constraint model introduces constraints including non-AI constraints or non-machine learning constraints…
[0042] Community cloud: the cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on-premises or off-premises…
[0071]… the physics constraint model introduces constraints including non-artificial intelligence constraints or non-machine learning constraints'
As to claim(s) 11, 17, the same deficiency applies.
As to claim 17, the term "generate a high fidelity simulation" in the next to last line is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high fidelity" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The subject matter description of “high fidelity” in the specification amounts to repetitions of “high fidelity ”, i.e. no definition of “high fidelity ” is elaborated in the description.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Timothy Joseph Chainer, U.S. Patent 10929577 , discloses "[t]The full physics model component 114 can compare the determined structural and/or operational characteristics of a subject second model with the operational constraints to determine whether the second model complies with the operational constraints. Additionally, the full physics model component 114 can determine whether the second model (e.g., full physics model) is capable of functioning at the given parameters. Thus, the full physics model component 114 can generate a feasible full physics model that is: based on the reduced physics model, meets the requirements indicated by the output of the reduced physics model, and meets the operational constraints" (see col. 11, line 58 to col. 12, line 3),
No reference cited taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses
claims 1, 11, and 17 , "… a single decoder that is a neural network… training the multiple encoders and the single decoder to lower a prediction loss… utilizing… a physics constraint model to determine whether the best-fit proposed industry design process is feasible, wherein the physics constraint model incorporates additional non-machine learning constraints across different model components to ensure compliance with physical laws and relationships…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine any references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 112 second paragraph and rejections under 35 USC § 101, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 103, the rejections are rendered moot by the amendment.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, pages, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.\
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights