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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but are respectfully not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they are instead directed to a computer-implemented method of creating cross-domain surrogates. In response Examiner argues that claims that recite computer components can still be directed to mental processes as outlined in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a technological solution to creating reusable component libraries. However it is not clear how this solution is recited in the claims as the claims merely recite training a model on data and using the model.
It is argued that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application through the creation of surrogate libraires with standardized interfaces. In response however any alleged improvements to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Even then, the creation of surrogates with standardized interfaces effectively amounts to applying the abstract idea to a technological field of use.
Applicant argues that the claims include significantly more than the abstract idea since it requires specialized computing infrastructure. However as claimed, it is not clear how or why this is true. It is argued that the claims address the technical challenge of creating component libraries through the standardized interfaces. Again however it is not clear how this is referenced in the claims as the claims recite simply training a model and simply declaring that there is a standardized interface. It is not clear how the improvement is reflected. Applicant argues the integration of surrogates within acausal modeling provide improvements however this just appears to be applying the abstract idea to a particular filed of use.
Examiner notes however that the disclosure discusses newly developed compiler architecture. Amending the claims to include such limitations could potentially help to overcome the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 85-90, 92-100, and 102-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 85 and 95 are directed towards a method and an apparatus, respectively. Therefore, these claims, as well as their dependent claims, are directed towards one of the four statutory categories (process, machine (i.e. apparatus), manufacture, or composition of matter).
With respect to claim 85:
2A Prong 1:
Generating an approximation comprising a system of differential-algebraic equations wherein the approximation represents dynamics a physical process of a component of a system to be modeled (mental process - generating an approximating system of equations to represent a physical process can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Training a surrogate based on the approximation wherein the trained surrogate is configured to maintain mathematical compatibility across different simulation environments having different differential-equation solver architectures than the environment in which the surrogate was trained(can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Storing the trained surrogate in memory or data storage (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Retrieving the trained surrogate from the memory or data storage(adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Modeling the dynamics of the component using a differential-equation solver by providing inputs to the trained surrogate in an acausal modeling framework (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Training a surrogate based on the approximation wherein the trained surrogate is configured to maintain mathematical compatibility across different simulation environments having different differential-equation solver architectures than the environment in which the surrogate was trained(can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Storing the trained surrogate in memory or data storage (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
Retrieving the trained surrogate from the memory or data storage (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
Modeling the dynamics of the component using a differential-equation solver by providing inputs to the trained surrogate in an acausal modeling framework (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 86:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The approximation is generated based on input received from a user via a graphical user interface (GUI), the surrogate is trained based on input received from the user via the GUI, and the trained surrogate is stored based on input received from the user via the GUI (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The approximation is generated based on input received from a user via a graphical user interface (GUI), the surrogate is trained based on input received from the user via the GUI, and the trained surrogate is stored based on input received from the user via the GUI (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 87:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Wherein storing the trained surrogate in memory or data storage includes storing the trained surrogate as a modular component in a library and wherein each trained surrogate in the library includes standardized interface specifications that define input and output relationships for connecting with other surrogate components to form differential-algebraic equation systems (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Wherein storing the trained surrogate in memory or data storage includes storing the trained surrogate as a modular component in a library and wherein each trained surrogate in the library includes standardized interface specifications that define input and output relationships for connecting with other surrogate components to form differential-algebraic equation systems (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 88:
2A Prong 1:
The trained surrogate is a nonlinear reduced approximation of the component of the system to be modeled (mental process - developing a nonlinear reduced approximation can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
2A Prong 2: No additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
2B: No additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 89:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The surrogate is a self-contained neural network that encapsulates component behavior independently of the original training environment (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The surrogate is a self-contained neural network that encapsulates component behavior independently of the original training environment (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 90:
2A Prong 1:
The system of equations is a self-contained system of differential-algebraic equations that encapsulates component behavior independently of the original training environment (mathematical concept - a differential-algebraic equation can be considered a mathematical concept - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
2A Prong 2: No additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
2B: No additional elements beyond the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 91:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate recreates the dynamics of the physical process of the system to be modeled (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate recreates the dynamics of the physical process of the system to be modeled (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 92:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be used as a representation of a physical process in a second system to be modeled that represents a second physical process (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be used as a representation of a physical process in a second system to be modeled that represents a second physical process (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 93:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be used in multiple simulations without retraining the trained surrogate (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be used in multiple simulations without retraining the trained surrogate (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 94:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be combined with other trained surrogates to build a composed system that can be solved using a differential-equation solver (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
The trained surrogate is configured to be combined with other trained surrogates to build a composed system that can be solved using a differential-equation solver (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to claim 105:
2A Prong 1: No judicial exceptions introduced beyond those present in the claim’s inherited limitations.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Wherein the acausal modeling framework includes connections between components that create implicit relationships, and wherein mathematical transformation of the implicit relationships determines state-dependent control flow (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Wherein the acausal modeling framework includes connections between components that create implicit relationships, and wherein mathematical transformation of the implicit relationships determines state-dependent control flow (can be considered merely reciting the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 95-100,102-104 and 106 correspond to claims 85-90, 92-94, and 105 respectively. The claims recite the same substantial subject matter only differing in embodiment. The difference in embodiments do not meaningfully change the above analysis and therefore the claims are subject to the same rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rackauckas, Christopher, et al. "Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning." arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04385 (2020).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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.
KEVIN W FIGUEROA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2124
/Kevin W Figueroa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights