DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-13 and 15-17 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: The claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the claim recites multiple abstract limitations. The defining, processing, presenting and wherein clauses each contain abstract limitations. Since the claim contains multiple abstract limitations, it is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument: The abstract ideas of Claim 1 are integrated into a practical application because Claim 1 results in a reduction in the number of equations needed to represent and simulate complex engineering problems.
Examiner’s Response: MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. Here the additional elements do not reflect the improvement as they are the mere incorporation of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The reduction in the number of equations argued by Applicant is an abstract idea (Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations) which further evidences that the invention as a whole is an abstract idea. And, as noted above, the abstract idea cannot integrate the invention into a practical application.
Applicant’s Argument: The claimed invention recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees for the same reasons above, because the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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, 3-13 and 15-17 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.
The term “low complexity” and “high performance” in claims 1 and 15 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are 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 specification merely recites the claimed recitation, but 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, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
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, 3-13 and 15-17, 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, 3-13 and 16-17 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 15 is directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1, 3-13 and 15-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 15 recite the abstract idea of forming quantity equations from a selection of dependent and independent variables, 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 " a) defining, …, an input from the selection of the set or sets of dependent and independent variables, the input comprising a list of physical quantities;” covers mental processes including making a judgement on what a dataset should be as well as a mathematical concept in the form of setting up an equation. That is, but for the recitation of “by the processor”, there is nothing in the limitation that precludes operation in the mind. This applies to all recitations of by the processor. Additionally, the limitation of “b) processing, …, said input, comprising: encoding and decoding of dimensionless groups in an integer lattice using number-theoretic algorithms of low complexity and high performance; and mapping a plurality of engineering problems to a canonical problem based on a similitude principle, thereby obtaining a system of quantity equations, the quantity equations comprising the quantities; and” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and making a judgement on equations, as well as a mathematical concept including performing calculations to encode and decode integers using a mathematical calculation technique to obtain a series of equations. Additionally, the limitation of “c) presenting, …, the system of quantity equations as an output … by reducing the number of equations required to model the plurality of engineering problems” covers mental processes including visualizing or writing out the series of equations with pencil and paper, or alternatively a mathematical concept in the form of deriving an equation through calculations. Additionally, the limitations of
PNG
media_image1.png
229
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
covers mental processes including making a judgment about a list of quantities, a judgement to select quantities and an evaluation to compare the quantities, as well as a mathematical concept including performing calculations to order quantities, setting up and equation with natural numbers and performing calculations to determine lattice points. That is, but for the recitation of “a ‘kind of quantity’ database”, there is nothing in the limitation that precludes operation in the mind. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of 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.
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-17 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 Claims 1 and 15, the similarly recited additional elements of “a processor”, “a computer”, “a ‘kind of quantity’ database”, “a computing device” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “using the system of quantity equations in operating a computer to improve computing efficiency” recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 15 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3-13 and 16-17 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 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1 and 15, the similarly recited additional elements of “a processor”, “a computer”, “a ‘kind of quantity’ database”, “a computing device” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation of “using the system of quantity equations in operating a computer to improve computing efficiency” recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 15 only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f), “(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"… In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” 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 3 is directed to further defining the selection of a quantity from an equation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining additional calculation steps to process the input, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 5-8 are directed to further defining the processing of the input by additional selections and calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the creation of equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 10 and 11 are directed to further defining the labeling of variables, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the creating a dictionary and evaluating results, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining the values of the variables, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining the encoding and decoding of groups, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the system of equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-13 and 15-17 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.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims. Seel Allowable Subject Matter of Final Rejection dated 6/10/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taleb USPPN 2009/0175550: Also teaches the encoding and decoding of variables in an integer lattice.
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 on 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