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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/24/2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
The objections to Claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The amendments to claims 1-5, 7-10 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1-10 have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible; the steps still can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, and the use of a computer does not alter the nature of claim. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made with respect to independent claims 1, 7, 8. The newly added limitations require application of different prior art than that previously relied upon. Accordingly, the rejection is properly made final in accordance with MPEP 706.07(a). In addition, dependent claims 9-10 which depend from the newly amended claims 1, 7, 8 are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art. Because the basis and the combination of references has changed, these rejections are likewise new grounds of rejection and are properly made final in view of the amendments.
Claims 1, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, Tree representations of streamline topologies of structurally stable 2D incompressible flows, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics (2018) 83, 380–411, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxy005, Advance Access Publication on 26 March 2018, hereinafter SAK18 in further view of Sakajo et al US 20170323033, hereinafter SAK17
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, Tree representations of streamline topologies of structurally stable 2D incompressible flows, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics (2018) 83, 380–411, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxy005, Advance Access Publication on 26 March 2018, hereinafter SAK18 in further view of Sakajo et al US 20170323033, hereinafter SAK17, in view of in further view of Sakajo et al (US 20160259864) hereinafter SAK16 in further view of Chaudhuri et al (US 2021/0004645).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed on 09/24/2025 have been considered.
The objections to Claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The amendments to claims 1-5, 7-10 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1-10 have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. The amendments have not made the claim eligible; the steps still can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, and the use of a computer does not alter the nature of claim. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. An issue to consider is that, in the way the claims are redacted, a potential improvement, such as addressing compressible fluids, is recited part of limitation considered a mental process and there are no additional elements to integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II. “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. “
Regarding Claim 1, 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 – In view of amendments the rejections have been withdrawn and a new ground of rejections is now made for the reasons detailed below. In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made with respect to independent claims 1, 7, 8. The newly added limitations require application of different prior art than that previously relied upon. Accordingly, the rejection is properly made final in accordance with MPEP 706.07(a). In addition, dependent claims 9-10 which depend from the newly amended claims 1, 7, 8 are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art. Because the basis and the combination of references has changed, these rejections are likewise new grounds of rejection and are properly made final in view of the amendments.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-6 are directed to a device, and claims 7, 9-10 are directed to a method and claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 7, 8) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 7, 8) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following:
[A] A word representation device that performs word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern in a two-dimensional domain, the device comprising: a computer including a storage; wherein the storage stores a correspondence relationship between each streamline structure and a character of each streamline structure regarding a plurality of streamline structures forming the flow pattern, wherein the computer performs
[B] a root determination step of determining a root of a given flow pattern including an incompressible fluid and a compressible fluid;
[C] a tree representation forming step of determining a tree representation of the given flow pattern by repeatedly executing processing of extracting a streamline structure of the given flow pattern, assigning a character to the extracted streamline structure on the basis of the correspondence relationship stored in the storage, and deleting the extracted streamline structure from an innermost portion of the flow pattern until reaching the root, and
[D] a partially Cyclically Ordered rooted Tree(COT) representation generation step of converting the tree representation formed by the tree representation forming step to a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 7, 8) recites: determining a word representation of a streamline pattern consisting of a dictionary of associations between flow pattern elements and representation with characters [A]; determining a root of a flow pattern [B]; forming a tree representation, working from inner pattern (leaves) outwards toward the root [C] converting the tree representation to a special tree representation [D], which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “generating a special tree representation for a streamline structure of a flow pattern”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding determination of the root, identifying streamline patterns and associating characters to them, and creating the special tree representation. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Regarding the claim element “wherein the computer performs”, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claims 7, 8 ) recites an abstract idea.
Per Step 2A.2. it is determined that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements in [A], when considered individually, fail to amount to more than the judicial exception itself. Specifically:
- Element [A], reciting a representation generating system consisting of a computer and storage, constitutes ‘apply it’ (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) without adding any technological improvement;
Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements [A] do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative also of claim 7, 8) does not contribute an inventive concept. That is, the additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07).
The additional elements in [A], when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; and amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) [A]. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
When considered as a whole the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “generating a special tree representation for a streamline structure of a flow pattern” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7 and 8 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claims 2-5 recite
[Caim2] wherein among the streamline structures forming the flow pattern, basic structures are represented as σφ±, σφ̃±0, σφ̃±±, σφ̃±∓, βφ±, and βφ2.
[Claim3] wherein among the streamline structures forming the flow pattern, two-dimensional structures are represented as b̃± and b±.
[Claim4] wherein among the streamline structures forming the flow pattern, zero-dimensional point structures are represented as σ̃±0, σ̃±±, and σ̃±∓.
[Claim5] wherein among the streamline structures forming the flow pattern, one-dimensional structures are represented as p̃±, p±, a±, q±, b±±, b±∓, β±, c±, c2±, a2, γφ̃±, γ̃±±, ã±, and q̃±.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements the structure of the flow pattern– and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
Therefore, claims 2-5 are deemed ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6 further recites:
[A] the computer further performs: a combinatorial structure extraction step of generating a word representation having a one-to-one correspondence of the given flow pattern by extracting a combinatorial structure from the given flow pattern.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, extracting a combinatorial structure ([A]) covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement mentally or manually. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes, and, therefore, claim elements recite an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements and it does not practically or significantly alter how the previously identified judicial exception, the abstract idea of “generating a special tree representation for a streamline structure of a flow pattern” would be performed. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claim 6 is deemed ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites a method of learning a shape of a structure holding a fluid in a two-dimensional domain, comprising:
[A] performing word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern generated around the structure holding a fluid by using the word representation device of claim 1; and
[B] learning by AI such that a three-dimensional shape of the structure is output by using the word representation as an input.
Claim 9 recites generating a word representation [A], similar to claim 1, which was found reciting an abstract idea, a mental process of generating a word representation by observation of a streamline pattern, analysis/evaluation of its components and judgement in choosing the representation; also recites a generic learning by AI to map the word representation as input to the 3D shape structure as output [B], which an algorithm that can be performed mentally or on paper. The execution by an AI on a generic computer does not alter the essence of being an abstract idea - claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (the Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III.C. ) Accordingly, claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 10 recites a structure designing method of designing a structure in a fluid in a two-dimensional domain, the method comprising:
[A] performing word representation of a streamline structure of a target flow pattern using the word representation device of claim 1;
[B] inputting a word representation of the target flow pattern to the learned AI according to a method comprising:
[C] performing word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern generated around a structure in a fluid by using the word representation device; and
[D] learning by AI such that a three-dimensional shape of the structure is output by using the word representation as an input; and
[E] calculating and outputting a three-dimensional shape of a structure that realizes the target flow pattern using the learned AI.
Determining a word representation corresponding to a streamline structure [A], [C] is a mental process, which involves observation, evaluation and judgement. Learning by AI to map a word (as input) to a 3D shape of a structure (as output) [D] and the calculation aspect in [E] are also abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities, data gathering ([B]) and data output ( in [E]) MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) -See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Taken individually or in combination, the additional elements [B] and [E] do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception (as they are simply providing an input to the algorithm and outputting its result), nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception. The additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 and 2106.07) . These do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped, and a single rejection analysis is performed, on a representative claim for the group.
Claims 1, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, Tree representations of streamline topologies of structurally stable 2D incompressible flows, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics (2018) 83, 380–411, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxy005, Advance Access Publication on 26 March 2018, hereinafter SAK18 in further view of Sakajo et al US 20170323033, hereinafter SAK17
Regarding claim 1, representative of claims 7 and claim 8, SAK15 discloses
a word representation device that performs word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern in a two-dimensional domain, the device comprising: a computer including a storage; wherein the storage stores a correspondence relationship between each streamline structure and a character of each streamline structure regarding a plurality of streamline structures forming the flow pattern, {see at least [0007] an object of the present invention is to provide a method for a word representation of a flow pattern, an apparatus for a word representation; [0161] This is the example of the basic processing performed by the word representation apparatus 100 according to the embodiment. By forming a word representation as described above, it can be used for a method of optimizing structure designing. For example, the word representation apparatus 100 stores, according to the algorithm A, a group of word representations defining all flow patterns that can be applied to a structure in the word representation file 106c and represents, according to the algorithm B, to which flow pattern the simulation result corresponds by a word representation. [0161] This is the example of the basic processing performed by the word representation apparatus 100 according to the embodiment. By forming a word representation as described above…} Word representation generator interpreted as forming a word representation.
SAK15 does not disclose, however SAK18 discloses:
word representation generator is provided with a root determination means, a tree representation forming means, and a COT representation generation means, {Skajo2018 JAM: See [page 381, last paragraph] In Section 3 we show that it is possible to assign a unique tree representation and its associated regular expression to every streamline topology of a structurally stable Hamiltonian vector field. [page 385, last paragraph] We construct a unique rooted, labelled and directed plane tree TW = (V, E) associated with W as follows. We choose the root vertex as the outermost connected component in C, to which the label +∅ (resp. −∅) is assigned when the component contains periodic orbits going in the counterclockwise (resp. clockwise) direction. [Page 387 first paragraph] The vertices with the same label +0 (or −0) are arranged uniquely in cyclic order …. For the connected components symbolized yj for j = 1, ... , k in Fig. 3, the order is introduced in cyclic order}
a tree representation forming step of determining a tree representation of the given flow pattern by repeatedly executing processing of extracting a streamline structure of the given flow pattern, assigning a character to the extracted streamline structure on the basis of the correspondence relationship stored in the storage, and deleting the extracted streamline structure from an innermost portion of the flow pattern until reaching the root, and a partially Cyclically Ordered rooted Tree(COT) representation generation step of converting the tree representation formed by the tree representation forming step to a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern. {see at least [page 385 last paragraph] We construct a unique rooted, labelled and directed plane tree TW = (V, E) associated with W as follows. [page 386 last paragraph] First of all, for all v ∈ V, we first arrange the vertices in Γ (v) according to the order (2.1). The vertices with the same label +0 (or −0) are arranged uniquely in cyclic order owing to #Γ+0 (v) and #Γ−0 (v) 2. On the other hand, since there contains arbitrary positive number of vertices in Γ+2 (v) and Γ−2 (v), we determine the order between them in the following manner. For the connected components symbolized yj for j = 1, ... , k in Fig. 3, the order is introduced in cyclic order. That is to say, choosing a connected component freely amongst them, which is symbolized as y1, we pick up the other connected components in counterclockwise direction. Regarding the connected components symbolized as zj for j = 1, ... , l in Fig. 3, they are just arranged in the counterclockwise direction from the left. Based on the order of the vertices in Γ (v), we describe the algorithm draw_O_tree(v) to draw the local tree structure in the plane for a vertex v with periodic orbits in Algorithm 1.} Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the specification [“partially cyclically ordered rooted tree representation" (hereinafter, referred to as a "COT representation”] in broadest reasonable interpretation the conversion to a COT representation is interpreted as a tree representation for which connected components are in cyclic order.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15 with SAK18. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of cyclically ordered trees canonical form which preserves directionality, proximity and semantic grouping better than non-cyclic (linear) representation and enables more efficient comparison, indexing and compression. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation. SAK18 is merely relied upon to illustrate the process of conversion that addresses a broader class and offers an association that is one-to-one between pattern and word. As best understood by Examiner, since establishing the correspondence between a pattern and a word representation and doing it using an algorithm that forms the cyclic ordered tree are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15 and SAK18 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15 in view of SAK18.
SAK15, SAK18 does not disclose, however SAK17 discloses:
a root determination step of determining a root of a given flow pattern including an incompressible fluid and a compressible fluid ([0082]) the outermost connected component is regarded as the root (step S33). The current component is then set for the root (step S34).(p8 ln46 [0098]) The components of flows that are dealt with in the embodiment will be described here with reference to FIGS. 4 to 6. Incompressible flows may be used as "flows" according to the embodiment. The incompressibility of fluid refers to the property that the volume does not change even if a force is applied. It is generally permissible to consider the flows of normal water or the atmosphere, when considered in the scale of daily life, in the frame of such flows. The present invention is not limited to this, and compressible flows may be dealt with in calculations.;
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18 with SAK17. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of representing both compressible and incompressible flows. It would have also been obvious to try to apply the same representation steps at least for the root determination. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15 in view of SAK18 in further view of SAK17.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent on claim 1, SAK18 further discloses
a combinatorial structure extraction means that generates a word representation having a one-to-one correspondence of the given flow pattern by extracting a combinatorial structure from the given flow pattern. {SAK18 page 407, Section 6. We have shown that streamline topologies of structurally stable Hamiltonian vector fields with/without a dipole singularity are in one-to-one correspondence with rooted, labelled and directed plane trees and their associated regular expressions…. In spite of utilizing some technical terms of the graph theory and the combinatorics, the characterization of streamline topologies in terms of regular expression is of a practical significance by the following reasons. First, it provides the classification of Hamiltonian flows in the presence of uniform flow and multiply solid boundaries that are often used as flow models appearing in many engineering and geophysical problems, but have not been considered in the preceding studies. Second, the tree representation is combinatorial}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15, SAK18, SAK17 with further teachings of SAK18. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of a canonical form that allows comparing different flows. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15, SAK18 evidently discloses how to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation. SAK18 is merely relied upon to illustrate choosing a specific type of (combinatorial) representation. As best understood by Examiner, since establishing the correspondence between a pattern and a word representation and doing it for a specific type of representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18 and SAK17 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18, in view of SAK17.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, Tree representations of streamline topologies of structurally stable 2D incompressible flows, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics (2018) 83, 380–411, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxy005, Advance Access Publication on 26 March 2018, hereinafter SAK18 in further view of Sakajo et al US 20170323033, hereinafter SAK17, in view of in further view of Sakajo et al (US 20160259864) hereinafter SAK16 in further view of Chaudhuri et al (US 2021/0004645).
Regarding claim 9, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 discloses the device of claim 1.
SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 does not disclose, however SAK16 discloses:
performing word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern generated around the structure holding the fluid { [0293] The word representation forming unit 102c is a word representation forming unit that forms a word representation representing a flow pattern of a flow around an object by assigning, according to the streamline diagram acquired by the streamline analyzing unit 102b,}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SAK17, with SAK16. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to associate flow patterns with structures that may generate them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation; SAK16 is merely relied upon to illustrate the case when the flow pattern is obtained by a physical shape in the flow. As best understood by Examiner, since describing the algorithm that forms the cyclic ordered tree and generally describing component units of establishing the correspondence between a pattern and a word representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 and SAK16 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 in further view of SAK16.
SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 does not disclose, however Chaudhuri discloses:
learning by AI such that a three-dimensional shape of the structure is output by using the word representation as an input. {see at least [0006] a trained neural network model is used to infer the unified shaped representation for a 3D shape. The neural network includes an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network. In certain embodiments, a particular type of 3D shape representation is provided as input to the encoder neural network, which is configured to generate a unified shape representation for the 3D shape represented by the input representation.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 with Choudhuri’s. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being reconstructing the possible 3D structures that generate the specific flow patterns. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation including flows generated by 3D shaped structures in the flow. Chaudhuri is merely relied upon to illustrate the case of inverse problem, that is generating the physical 3D shape from the flow streamline. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the mapping between a structure and a representation and the inverse calculation of structure from representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 and Chaudhuri would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 in further view of Chaudhuri.
Regarding claim 10, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 discloses
performing word representation of a streamline structure of a target flow pattern using the word representation device of claim 1; (see analysis for Claim 1)
SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 does not disclose, however SAK16 discloses
performing word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern generated around a structure in a fluid { [0293] The word representation forming unit 102c is a word representation forming unit that forms a word representation representing a flow pattern of a flow around an object by assigning, according to the streamline diagram acquired by the streamline analyzing unit 102b,}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SAK17, with SAK16. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being able to associate flow patterns with structures that may generate them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation; SAK16 is merely relied upon to illustrate the case when the flow pattern is obtained by a physical shape in the flow. As best understood by Examiner, since describing the algorithm that forms the cyclic ordered tree and generally describing component units of establishing the correspondence between a pattern and a word representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 and SAK16 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SAK17 in further view of SAK16.
SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 does not disclose, however Chaudhuri discloses: inputting a word representation of the target flow pattern to a learned AI according to a method comprising: performing word representation of the streamline structure of the flow pattern generated around the structure holding the fluid by using the word representation device; learning by AI such that a three-dimensional shape of the structure is output using the word representation as an input; and calculating and outputting a three-dimensional shape of a structure that realizes the target flow pattern using the learned AI. {see at least [0006] a trained neural network model is used to infer the unified shaped representation for a 3D shape. The neural network includes an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network. In certain embodiments, a particular type of 3D shape representation is provided as input to the encoder neural network, which is configured to generate a unified shape representation for the 3D shape represented by the input representation. [0007] In certain embodiments, a neural network comprising an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network is trained} Inputting a word representation of the target flow pattern to a learned AI is interpreted as a particular type of 3D shape representation is provided as input to the encoder neural network; learning by AI such that a three-dimensional shape of the structure is output using the word representation as an input is interpreted as neural network, which is configured to generate a unified shape representation for the 3D shape represented by the input representation, and calculating and outputting a three-dimensional shape of a structure that realizes the target flow pattern using the learned AI is interpreted as generate a unified shape representation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 with Choudhuri’s. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of being reconstructing the possible 3D structures that generate the specific flow patterns Learning by neural networks, a form of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advantageous since it has demonstrated advantages in providing accurate solutions for complex cases for which analytical solutions are lacking. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation including flows generated by 3D shaped structures in the flow. Chaudhuri is merely relied upon to illustrate the case of inverse problem, that is generating the physical 3D shape from the flow streamline. As best understood by Examiner, since obtaining the mapping between a structure and a representation and the inverse calculation of structure from representation are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16 and Chaudhuri would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SAK17/SAK16, in further view of Chaudhuri.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188