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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specification.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “analysis device”, “input/output/ device” and “ processing device” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is eligible under Step 1 for being directed to processes.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites
performing renormalization on the particle system according to a degree of renormalization determined for each of three directions orthogonal to each other according to a shape of the flow field by the particle system to be analyzed; (math concept)
and numerically solving a motion equation that governs a motion of the particle system with respect to the particle system after the renormalization, (math concept)
wherein in the performing of renormalization, a number of particles is reduced according to the degree of renormalization, and mass of each of the particles is increased according to the degree of renormalization without changing a shape and volume of the flow field before and after the renormalization, and an interaction potential between the particles is transformed according to the degree of renormalization in each of the three directions. (math concept)
The claimed concept is a method of performing renormalization by solving equations based on mathematic relationship directed to “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Therefore, claim 1 is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The claim did not recite additional element. Note that, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two applies here in 2B. The present claim does not recite any limitation that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Same conclusion for dependent claims of claim 1. See below.
2. The analysis method according to claim 1, wherein a dimension in a first direction of the flow field to be analyzed is smaller than dimensions in second and third directions, the degree of renormalization in the first direction is smaller than the degrees of renormalization in the second direction and the third direction, and the degree of renormalization in the second direction and the degree of renormalization in the third direction are the same, and a shape of an equipotential surface of an interaction potential before the renormalization isa substantially spherical shape, and a shape of the equipotential surface of the interaction potential after the renormalization coincides with a shape of a surface of a flat spheroid with the first direction as a minor axis direction. (data description)
3. The analysis method according to claim 1, wherein a dimension in a first direction of the flow field to be analyzed is larger than dimensions in second and third directions, the degree of renormalization in the first direction is larger than the degrees of renormalization in the second direction and the third direction, and the degree of renormalization in the second direction and the degree of renormalization in the third direction are the same, and a shape of an equipotential surface of an interaction potential before the renormalization is a substantially spherical shape, and a shape of the equipotential surface of the interaction potential after the renormalization coincides with a shape of a surface of a prolate spheroid with the first direction as a major axis direction. (data description)
Same conclusion for independent claims 4-5. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim limitations do not recite a combination of additional elements that tie or “integrate the invention into a practical application”.
Thus, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 5, the claim limitation recites “computer readable medium storing program”. However, the usage of the phrase “computer storage medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory" and “transitory” (moving electrons, etc) media. The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer storage medium and, thus does not constitute functional descriptive material. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory’ to the claim. Cf. Animals – Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F. 3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Therefore, claim 5 is non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al (US 2019/0311786 A1), hereinafter Kobayashi.
1. An analysis method of analyzing a behavior of a particle system that includes a plurality of particles forming a flow field, by using a renormalized molecular dynamics method, comprising:
Kobayashi discloses performing renormalization on the particle system according to a degree of renormalization determined for each of three directions orthogonal to each other according to a shape of the flow field by the particle system to be analyzed;
Kobayashi: See Fig. 1 and 6.
[0030] “By applying renormalization transformation to a granular system formed by polymers in which a plurality of monomer grains are connected to each other in a chain shape, it is possible to perform molecular dynamics calculation….”
[0047] “Here, d represents a dimensionality of a space where the granular system S which is the simulation target is arranged. λ represents a renormalization factor depending on the number of times of renormalization. When the number of times of renormalization is n, the renormalization factor λ is expressed as the following equation.”
In light of spec, “degree of renormalization” is same as “number of time of renormalization”.
Kobayashi discloses and numerically solving a motion equation that governs a motion of the particle system with respect to the particle system after the renormalization,
Kobayashi: [0034] “In molecular dynamics, by solving the motion equations expressed by Equation (7) and Equation (8) by numerical integration with respect to each grain that forms a granular system, the momentum vector p.sub.j and the position vector q.sub.j of each grain at each time point are obtained. …”
Kobayashi discloses wherein in the performing of renormalization, a number of particles is reduced according to the degree of renormalization, and mass of each of the particles is increased according to the degree of renormalization without changing a shape and volume of the flow field before and after the renormalization, and
Kobayashi: [0051] “By applying the above-described renormalization transformation law, the number of grains becomes 1/λ.sup.d times, and the mass of a grain becomes λ.sup.d times. Thus, the entire mass of the granular system S and the entire mass of the granular system S′ are the same. Further, since the position vector q′ of the monomer grain in the granular system S′ and the position vector q of the monomer grain in the granular system S are the same, macroscopic dimensions between the granular system S and the renormalized granular system S′ are the same. Since the entire mass of the granular system and the dimension thereof do not change before and after the renormalization transformation process, the density of the granular system is not also changed.”
Kobayashi discloses an interaction potential between the particles is transformed according to the degree of renormalization in each of the three directions.
Kobayashi: [0084-0090] “As shown in FIG. 4C, in the potential moving method, the nearest-neighbor-coupling of integration target grains is divided into grains which are adjacently arranged in the x direction. A grain interaction (double coupling) obtained by adding up divided interactions is indicated by a double-line. The double coupling indicated by the double-line has a strength two times the original nearest-neighbor-coupling. Using such a method, it is possible to transform a two-dimensional lattice into a one-dimensional chain. In the granular system of the one-dimensional chain, it is possible to perform coarse graining of an interaction potential by the method described with reference to FIG. 2. In a case where a granular system which is a simulation target forms a three-dimensional lattice, a procedure of transforming a two-dimensional lattice into a one-dimensional chain may be repeated in three directions of the x direction, the y direction, and the z direction. In this way, it is possible to perform coarse graining of a granular system that forms a multi-dimensional lattice. …”
[0097] “A list K.sub.n of coupling coefficients after renormalization transformation is executed n times is expressed as the following equation. …”
Regarding Claim 4-5, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kobayashi et al (US 20190311786 A1) teaches a process of performing a renormalization transformation process with respect to a granular system S that is a simulation target that includes a plurality of polymers that are respectively formed of a plurality of monomer grains that are connected to each other in one dimension, on the basis of a renormalization factor λ depending on the number of times of renormalization; and a process of calculating a position vector and a momentum vector of a monomer grain in a renormalized granular system S′ by executing molecular dynamics calculation with respect to the renormalized granular system S′.
Hirose et al (US 20170017737 A1) teaches a simulation method of a granular material including the steps of: defining a granular material S which is a simulation target in which a force acting on each grain is expressed by a potential dependent term depending on an interaction potential φ between grains and a dissipation term depending on dissipation of energy; renormalization-transforming a physical quantity included in the potential dependent term of a motion equation of each grain of the granular material S so that the form of a Hamiltonian expressed by a kinetic energy of each grain of the granular material S and a potential energy based on the interaction potential φ does not change; renormalization-transforming a physical quantity included in the dissipation term so that a rate of change of the potential dependent term and a rate of change of the dissipation term based on the renormalization transformation of the physical quantities become equal to each other; and calculating temporal development of a renormalized granular material S′ by assigning initial values to a position vector and a momentum vector of each grain of the renormalized particulate S′ and by performing numerical integration with respect to a motion equation of each grain with a certain time interval width based on the renormalized physical quantities.
Mills (US 20070198199 A1) teaches a Dirac delta function in the elliptic parameter gives the physical representation of the bound electron as a two-dimensional equipotential surface of charge (mass) density with time-harmonic motion along a geodesic at each position on the surface. See Fig. 1.
These references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record fail to disclose instructions, including:
Claim 2 “a shape of an equipotential surface of an interaction potential before the renormalization isa substantially spherical shape, and a shape of the equipotential surface of the interaction potential after the renormalization coincides with a shape of a surface of a flat spheroid with the first direction as a minor axis direction.”
Claim 3: “a shape of an equipotential surface of an interaction potential before the renormalization is a substantially spherical shape, and a shape of the equipotential surface of the interaction potential after the renormalization coincides with a shape of a surface of a prolate spheroid with the first direction as a major axis direction.”
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUEN-MEEI GAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/CHUEN-MEEI GAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189