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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1, 13 and 19 have been amended, no claim is canceled or added. Thus claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 19-27 remain pending in the application. However, new rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) has been made based on the newly amended limitations.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
… The pending claims, after amendment, are directed to a process performed by one or more GPUs for simulating a dynamic, physical process such as an avalanche by "creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure, wherein the sparse data structure stores only non-zero values of the particle information assuming the rest of the particle information being zero" and implementing the physical law that governs this process using the sparse data structure. For example, when the bulk of snow moves fast, there is saltation/atomization of snow near the surface of the bulk of snow forming snow smoke.
It is well-known to those skilled in the art that there is a constant technical challenge between the accuracy of the simulation and the limited amount of the computer resources (GPU processing power, memory space, etc.). In other words, a more accurate simulation requires the consumption of more computer resources and possibly takes a long time to complete and the reduction of the use of computer resources in the simulation would result into a less real simulation.
In this application, the implementation of the simulation process using the sparse data structure on the GPUs' memory provides a more reasonable result that effectively reduces the footprint of the simulation process's memory usage by storing only non-zero values of the particle information in the sparse data structure while assuming the rest of the particle information being zero and therefore not storing them in the memory. See, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0026], [0045] and [0082] (reproduced below in part).
[0006] ... In some embodiments, realistic visual results are created with a novel computational scheme by harnessing the power of Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) and sparse data structure.
[0026] Sparse data structure: a data structure that stores only non-zero values assuming the rest of the values are zeros. In some instances, most of the values within the data structure are zeros. That approach saves memory and computing time.
[0045] In some embodiments, the implementation disclosed herein is built on the sparse data structure, which enables a much more efficient memory usage and therefore this tool allows the users to conduct simulations on a much larger scale than some previous methods.
[0082] In some embodiments, a sparse data structure is implemented for the method of simulating the visual effect of avalanche of the media. For example, the implementation is built on the sparse data structure, which enables a much more efficient memory usage and therefore this tool allows the users to conduct simulations on a much larger scale than previous methods.
Emphasis Added.
In view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims have integrated the simulation process into a practical application by harnessing the power of GPU and sparse data structure and the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 should be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 12/22/2025 [pages 9-11]).
With respect to Applicant arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagree the pending claims have integrated the simulation process into a practical application by harnessing the power of GPU and sparse data structure. For example, the additional limitation of claim 1, “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure, wherein the sparse data structure stores only non-zero values of the particle information assuming the rest of the particle information being zero,” which is merely a recites organizing and storing data according to a sparsity condition, without reciting any specific technical implementation or technological improvement. In particular, the additional limitation does not specify how the sparse data structure is created in memory, how non-zero values are identified, indexed or accessed, or how GPU and memory hardware is modified or controlled to achieve a technical improvement, Instead, the limitation merely recites a type of data storage applied to the abstract steps (mathematical concepts). Therefore, the additional limitation does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
For Step 2B, the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional data storage and generation technique performed by generic computer, and the additional limitations do not recite any unconventional use of GPU or memory or any non-generic implementation details. Instead, the limitations merely apply the conventional data process, organization and storage technique using a generic computer (e.g., GPU, Memory, processor) as a tool to performed abstract steps (mathematical concepts). Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure …” In this case, the limitation “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example: in specification, [0006], “… In some embodiments, realistic visual results are created with a novel computational scheme by harnessing the power of Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) and sparse data structure.” [0026], “Sparse data structure: a data structure that stores only non-zero values assuming the rest of the values are zeros. In some instances, most of the values within the data structure are zeros. That approach saves memory and computing time.” [0043], “In some embodiments, the implementation disclosed herein is built on the sparse data structure, which enables a much more efficient memory usage and therefore this tool allows the users to conduct simulations on a much larger scale than some previous methods.” [0080], “In some embodiments, a sparse data structure is implemented for the method of simulating the visual effect of avalanche of the media. For example, the implementation is built on the sparse data structure, which enables a much more efficient memory usage and therefore this tool allows the users to conduct simulations on a much larger scale than previous methods.” [0083], “… a memory 702 …” [0085], “It may be understood that the memory 702 may be a volatile memory or a non-volatile memory, or may include both a volatile memory and a non-volatile memory.” However, the specification does not describe how a sparse data structure is created, for example, how non-zero entries are identified or selected, how memory is allocated or organized to support sparsity, or how the sparse data structure is constructed or managed in GPU memory. Instead, the specification merely describes the intended function and benefits of using a sparse data structure, rather than providing a description of the structural or algorithmic features are required to create the data structure, particularly within GPU memory. Although the specification discloses a memory may be volatile or non-volatile, there is no disclosure describing the creation or implementation of a sparse data structure within GPU’s memory. Therefore, the limitation “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure …” is not supported in the specification at the time of the time the application was filed.
Further, claim 1 recites “applying a fluid decaying scheme to convert the advection-projection simulated fluid into the particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure” In this case, the limitation “applying a fluid decaying scheme to convert the advection-projection simulated fluid into the particle information of the elastoplastic media” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In specification, for example, [0078], “In some embodiments, the fluid decaying scheme in step 616 is a modeling of a process of converting the fluid into the media, such as step 118 of fluid conversion into elastoplastic media described in Figure 1.” However, the specification does not describe how the application of the fluid decaying scheme produces or updates particle information, how the particle information is generated, modified, or stored with the sparse data structure as a result of the fluid decaying scheme. Instead, the specification merely describes a modeling of a process of converting the fluid into the media, without describing the corresponding data representation or transformation. Therefore the limitation “applying a fluid decaying scheme to convert the advection-projection simulated fluid into the particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure” is not supported in the specification at the time of the time the application was filed.
Claims 13 and 19 also recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons. The remaining claims dependent upon one of the claims listed above and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 17 and 19-27 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, claims 13-14, 17 and 25-27 are directed to apparatus and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, claims 19-24 are directed to non-transitory computer readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 1, The limitation of “interpolating particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure from particles to a grid according to a material point method (MPM) algorithm at a first time step,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0044], “MPM is a numerical algorithm to simulate how materials move and deform … In addition, all stress based forces are computed on the Eulerian grid, and the material state has to be transferred to the Eulerian configuration to incorporate the effects of material forces.” [0045], “MPM is a hybrid method of Lagrangian and Eulerian by treating the object as a collection of particles at some points and as a grid at other points. MPM solves the controlling equation on a background of Eulerian grid … The grid is just a temporary place holder that's used for calculations and gets wiped clean each time step … The particles store their individual properties including position, mass, volume, velocity, etc. The particles' information is transferred to the grid when computing how the particles would move in the next time period Δt. The grid incorporates all of the particles and computes the new velocities by performing gradient calculations based on the weight functions to determine how the particles would move.” The instant specification describes transferring particles values (position, mass volume, velocity) to grid nodes using weight functions and gradient calculations. These steps are defined by mathematical relationships and formulas between particles and the grid. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitation of “simulating advection of fluid from the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure at a second time step, wherein the second time step is greater than the first time step, the simulating further comprising:” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0044], “MPM is a numerical algorithm to simulate how materials move and deform … In addition, all stress based forces are computed on the Eulerian grid, and the material state has to be transferred to the Eulerian configuration to incorporate the effects of material forces.” [0045], “MPM is a hybrid method of Lagrangian and Eulerian by treating the object as a collection of particles at some points and as a grid at other points. MPM solves the controlling equation on a background of Eulerian grid … The grid is just a temporary place holder that's used for calculations and gets wiped clean each time step … The particles store their individual properties including position, mass, volume, velocity, etc. The particles' information is transferred to the grid when computing how the particles would move in the next time period Δt. The grid incorporates all of the particles and computes the new velocities by performing gradient calculations …” [0049], “… MacCormack advection method is a discretization scheme for the numerical solution of hyperbolic partial differential equations in computational fluid dynamics.” The specification describes advection step as a numerical discretization of partial differential equations (PDEs). These steps are defined by mathematical formulas and equations to solve PDEs. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitation of “identifying locations at a surface of the elastoplastic media that receives a smaller mass during the particle-to-grid interpolation according to the MPM algorithm,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0044], “MPM is a numerical algorithm to simulate how materials move and deform … In addition, all stress based forces are computed on the Eulerian grid, and the material state has to be transferred to the Eulerian configuration to incorporate the effects of material forces.” [0045], “MPM is a hybrid method of Lagrangian and Eulerian by treating the object as a collection of particles at some points and as a grid at other points. MPM solves the controlling equation on a background of Eulerian grid … The grid is just a temporary place holder that's used for calculations and gets wiped clean each time step … The particles store their individual properties including position, mass, volume, velocity, etc. The particles' information is transferred to the grid when computing how the particles would move in the next time period Δt. The grid incorporates all of the particles and computes the new velocities by performing gradient calculations …” [0054], “… The surface of the elastoplastic media is identified by observing that in the MPM algorithm, the locations of the surface of the elastoplastic media receives a smaller mass during the particle to grid transfer.” The specification describes that the surface is determined by evaluating the interpolated mass values during the P2G transfer. Grid nodes that receive a smaller mass are identified as surface locations. These steps are based on numerical interpolation of mass values between particles and the grid, which is mathematical relationships. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitations of “generating saltation or atomization fluid from the elastoplastic media near the locations at the surface of the elastoplastic media according to a transport rate of the elastoplastic media,” The limitations can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0053], “As the elastoplastic media interact with the surrounding air, the media's surface experiences saltation and/or atomization, where individual particles of the media are separated from the majority of the media and are carried away by the wind. In some embodiments, a mathematical model of the saltation/atomization the process is implemented as:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… The saltation/atomization fluid is introduced to the simulation system by increasing the density of fluid according to the transport rate. The specification describes a mathematical formula for the transport rate of saltation/atomization. The generation of fluid is based on variables such as air density, velocity, and gravity, combined into a quantitative equation. These steps are defined by mathematical relationships and formulas. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitations of “applying a computed drag force to update the interpolated particle information stored in the sparse data structure on the grid and to the simulated advection of the fluid by (i) calculating a first momentum change on the elastoplastic media and a second momentum change on the fluid, respectively, according to the drag force and (ii) coupling the first momentum change and the and the second momentum change in a momentum-conserving manner,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0050]- [0052], for example, [0050], “… drag force is computed and applied 108 to the MPM system and the fluid system, respectively. The details on how to compute the drag force 108 are further described below, for example, momentum exchange between the fluid and the elastoplastic media is implemented. In some embodiments, aside from the conversion between the saltation and/or atomization fluid and the elastoplastic media, their momentum also undergoes constant exchange when the two phases share the same physical space. To model the coupling between the two phases in a momentum-conserving manner, a drag force model is adopted. In some embodiments, MPM allows a direct application of drag forces to grid nodes of elastoplastic media. Corresponding to the drag force density in a continuum equation, a drag force model is used in a discrete setting. In some examples, the fluid can take a larger time step than the elastoplastic media. For a fluid time step Δtf, n from tn to tn+1, one elastoplastic media timestep is divided into K substeps, i.e. ΣK=1 KΔts,nk=Δtf,n. On grid nodes where fluid and sediment materials are present, drag force density is calculated as
PNG
media_image2.png
94
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
The specification describes that drag force is calculated with equations to model how momentum is exchanged between the elastoplastic media and the fluid. The momentum is kept balanced based on equations that adjust the particle information and fluid motion. These steps are defined by mathematical relationships and equations. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitation of “interpolating the updated particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure from the grid back to the particles according to the MPM algorithm at the first time step,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0044], “MPM is a numerical algorithm to simulate how materials move and deform … In addition, all stress based forces are computed on the Eulerian grid, and the material state has to be transferred to the Eulerian configuration to incorporate the effects of material forces.” [0045], “MPM is a hybrid method of Lagrangian and Eulerian by treating the object as a collection of particles at some points and as a grid at other points. MPM solves the controlling equation on a background of Eulerian grid … The grid is just a temporary place holder that's used for calculations and gets wiped clean each time step … The particles store their individual properties including position, mass, volume, velocity, etc. The particles' information is transferred to the grid when computing how the particles would move in the next time period Δt. The grid incorporates all of the particles and computes the new velocities by performing gradient calculations …”. [0053], “…in the G2P time step, new particle velocities are computed and mapped from the grid to the applicable particle.” The specification describes that particle information is updated by calculation, and mapping values from the grid back to each particle. These steps are defined by mathematical relationships and formulas between particles and the grid. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitation of “simulating projection of the fluid from the elastoplastic media at the second time step,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0047], “…a fluid projection method operates as a two-stage fractional step scheme, and uses multiple calculation steps for each numerical time-step to numerically solve time-dependent incompressible fluid-flow problems …” The specification describes projection as a mathematical method that applies multiple calculation steps to solve incompressible fluid-flow equations. These steps are defined by mathematical formulas and relationships to perform the projection. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claim 1, The limitation of “applying a fluid decaying scheme to convert the advection-projection simulated fluid into the particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure,” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0055], “… the fluid decaying scheme 118 discussed below is used to model the fluid conversion to elastoplastic media.” [0056], “In modeling the fluid conversion to elastoplastic media process, after the initial phase of transition, the kinetic energy of the saltation/atomization fluid is dissipated … Instead, in some embodiments, the decaying of the saltation/atomization fluid is explicitly modeled using an exponential decay scheme.” The specification describes that the fluid decaying scheme is modeled using an exponential decay scheme, which is a mathematical method of calculating how the fluid decreases over time. These steps are defined by mathematical formulas and relationships to perform the conversion. Therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical concept under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claims 13 and 19 recite the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 13 and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 13 and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements - "An electronic apparatus comprising one or more processing units, memory coupled to the one or more processing units, and a programs stored in the memory that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the electronic apparatus to perform a plurality of operations of …” and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a plurality of programs for execution by an electronic apparatus having one or more processing units, wherein the plurality of programs, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the electronic apparatus to perform a plurality of operations of …” which are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Further, the additional element – “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure, wherein the sparse data structure stores only non-zero values of the particle information assuming the rest of the particle information being zero” and “ … stored in the sparse data structure …” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution as data gathering (i.e., store data in a sparse data structure) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (Examiner note: the additional limitation does not specify how the sparse data structure is created in memory, how non-zero values are identified, indexed or accessed, or how GPU and memory hardware is modified or controlled to achieve a technical improvement, Instead, the limitation merely recites a type of data storage applied to the abstract steps (mathematical concepts)).
Further, the additional limitation “generating an image illustrating a visual effect of the of the body of elastoplastic media in an avalanche state according to the interpolated updated particle information of the media and the simulated projection of the fluid” which is mere adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform generic image generation function to generate image based on updated particle information of the media and the simulated projection of the fluid at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception or significant more (Examiner note: the step does not reflect an improvement in computer technology or any other technical field. Instead, it merely describes use of a generic computer to generate and display an image based on obtained data that corresponds to abstract idea). - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 13 and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 13 and 19: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
The additional limitation “generating an image illustrating a visual effect of the of the body of elastoplastic media in an avalanche state according to the interpolated updated particle information of the media and the simulated projection of the fluid” and “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure, wherein the sparse data structure stores only non-zero values of the particle information assuming the rest of the particle information being zero” do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited steps merely describe a routine computer function (i.e., generating an image for display and using sparse data structure for storing data) that is well known in the field of computer technology. The claim limitations do not recite any specific improvement to computer technology or any other technical field (e.g., no particular improvement in computer architecture, data structure, or image processing hardware is disclosed) or unconventional use of GPU or memory or any non-generic implementation details. Instead, the limitations applied well-understood, routine and conventional operations for image generation and data storage at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(a), (d) and (f).
Further, Sparse storage structure that store only non-zero values and associated index information have been known in the arts, as shown for example by Vasiloglou (US10146740B1) discloses the sparse data set is received 402 by the input module 302. The sparse data set may be received by the input module 302 through a variety of sources. In some embodiments, the sparse data set comes from another process executing on the CPU 210. In some instances, the input module 302 may retrieve the sparse data set from the system memory 104 or the GPU memory 120. (col.5, lines 37-43), and Zhao (US20150242484A1) discloses each of the rows includes multiple zero elements and multiple non-zero elements, wherein each of the non-zero elements is indexable by a row index and a column index, and wherein the representation includes information about each of the non-zero elements and the respective row indices and column indices of the non-zero elements [0005]. See also Lumsdaine (US20070198621A1) discloses matrices with this property may be stored much more efficiently in memory if only the nonzero data values are stored, as well as some index data to identify where those data values fit in the matrix [0028]. Therefore, the additional limitations do not amount to “significantly more” under Step 2B.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 13 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 20-27 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 20-27 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 13 and 19.
Claim 2 recites “the generation of the image further comprises: determining whether a fluid generation condition is satisfied; in response to the determination that the fluid generation condition is satisfied: generating additional fluid from the elastoplastic media; and applying the fluid decaying scheme to convert the fluid into the elastoplastic media using an exponential decay scheme” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating fluid related data (e.g., velocity, slope, and obstacles) and determine whether the condition for fluid generation is met; if yes, then the decision of generate additional fluid from the elastoplastic media and apply fluid decaying scheme are made (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). The limitation of “applying the fluid decaying scheme …” can be considered to represent mathematic concepts, in the instant specification, [0055], “… the fluid decaying scheme 118 discussed below is used to model the fluid conversion to elastoplastic media.” [0056], “In modeling the fluid conversion to elastoplastic media process, after the initial phase of transition, the kinetic energy of the saltation/atomization fluid is dissipated … Instead, in some embodiments, the decaying of the saltation/atomization fluid is explicitly modeled using an exponential decay scheme.” The specification describes that the fluid decaying scheme is modeled using an exponential decay scheme, which is a mathematical way of calculating how the fluid decreases over time. These steps are defined by mathematical formulas and relationships to perform the conversion. Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “interpolating the particle information of the media to the grid is separate from simulating the advection of the fluid from the media.”
This merely specifies these two mathematical operations are preformed separately, which does not add meaningful elements to abstract idea. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “the grid is a Eulerian grid.”
This merely further defines the grid is a Eulerian grid, which does not add meaningful elements to abstract idea. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “determining whether the fluid generation condition is satisfied is according to a velocity threshold of the media” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person, for example, is capable of comparing a measure or simulated velocity value to a threshold value to decide whether a condition is met (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites “the executing operation of each node of the grid is performed independently in parallel.”
This merely specifies each node of the grid is performed independently in parallel, which is apply a generic computer implementation to abstract ideas, and does not add meaningful limitation. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 11 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14, 17 and 20-27 recite the similar elements as claims 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 17 and 19-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome
the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 19, the closest prior arts found, Chentanez US8878856B1, discloses of A system, method, and computer program product are provided for depicting a body of water utilizing a height field and particles. In use, content depicting a body of water is identified. Additionally, a height field is generated for the content. Furthermore, at least a portion of the height field is converted to a plurality of particles based on predetermined criteria. (Col. 2, 6-8, 10 and 13). The mechanical origin of snow avalanche dynamics and flow regime transitions by Li, published on 2020, discloses of investigates the dynamic behavior of snow avalanches, using the material point method (MPM) and an elastoplastic constitutive law for porous cohesive materials. By virtue of the hybrid Eulerian–Lagrangian nature of the MPM, we can handle processes involving large deformations, collisions and fractures. Meanwhile, the elastoplastic model enables us to capture the mixed-mode failure of snow, including tensile, shear and compressive failure. Using the proposed numerical approach, distinct behaviors of snow avalanches, from fluid-like to solid-like, are examined with varied snow mechanical properties. In particular, four flow regimes reported from real observations are identified, namely, cold dense, warm shear, warm plug and sliding slab regimes. Moreover, notable surges and roll waves are observed peculiarly for flows in transition from cold dense to warm shear regimes. (abstract, sections 1-5). Li US20230049323, discloses sparse data structure. ([0094]). Teran US20200082589, discloses Eulerian grid and time step according to a material point method (MPM). ([0032], [0036], [0038], [0042]). Stomakhin US 20150187116 A1 discloses a simulation application generates video frames depicting a granular material phenomenon using a strain based elasto-plastic constitutive model integrated with a hybrid Eulerian/Lagrangian material point method (MPM). The elasto-plastic constitutive model includes physical equation(s) which dictate forces that affect the granular material during the simulation. In particular, the constitutive model may include user-controllable parameters defining threshold(s) to start plastic deformation, as well as a hardening parameter which controls how fast the granular material packs under compression. The MPM is a procedure in which particles of the granular material and a background grid are coupled, with the grid being used to assist in computing forces dictated by the physical equation(s) of the elasto-plastic constitutive model. In one configuration, the grid may further be rendered with volumetric rendering to generate video frames depicting the granular material ([0015], [0024], [0031]-[0035], [0046]).
However, In light of record taken as a whole, applicant's method claim 1 and machine claim 13 and manufacture claim 19 are considered to be patentable distinct over the prior art. In particular, the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest in combination of limitations “creating a sparse data structure in a memory of the GPUs and storing particle information of the elastoplastic media in the sparse data structure, wherein the sparse data structure stores only non-zero values of the particle information assuming the rest of the particle information being zero;
interpolating the particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure from particles to a grid according to a material point method (MPM) algorithm at a first time step;
simulating advection of fluid from the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure at a second time step, wherein the second time step is greater than the first time step, the simulating further comprising:
identifying locations at a surface of the elastoplastic media that receives a smaller mass during the particle-to-grid interpolation according to the MPM algorithm;
generating saltation or atomization fluid from the elastoplastic media near the locations at the surface of the elastoplastic media according to a transport rate of the elastoplastic media;
applying a computed drag force to update the interpolated particle information stored in the sparse data structure on the grid and to the simulated advection of the fluid by (i) calculating a first momentum change on the elastoplastic media and a second momentum change on the fluid, respectively, according to the drag force and (ii) coupling the first momentum change and the and the second momentum change in a momentum-conserving manner;
interpolating the updated particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure from the grid back to the particles according to the MPM algorithm at the first time step;
simulating projection of the fluid from the elastoplastic media at the second time step;
applying a fluid decaying scheme to convert the advection-projection simulated fluid into the particle information of the elastoplastic media stored in the sparse data structure; and
generating an image illustrating a visual effect of the elastoplastic media in an avalanche state according to the interpolated updated particle information of the elastic media stored in the sparse data structure and the simulated advection-projection of the fluid,” as disclosed in claims 1, 13 and 19.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 20-27 are allowed as being dependent from allowed claims 1, 13 and 19.
Conclusion
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 YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights