DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20, as well as amended claims within U.S. Application Serial No. 17/654,972 (previously referenced double patent application).
Examiner agrees that previous double patent rejection included within Office Action dated 07/23/2025 is moot given claim amendments.
Previous double patent rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20. Applicants arguments, filed 11/10/2025, have been fully considered but were not
persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained. See 35 USC §101 analysis below. Note new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Applicant argues [Pg.2] that amended claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter since the claims recite concepts that integrate into a practical application (i.e. the claims recite an improvement in computer technology) and because the analysis of particle systems “is only possible using a computer due to the sheer number of computations required” [Pg.2 Ln.20]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed towards a system, therefore fall within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 8-20 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are all directed towards an abstract idea Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions [...] The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation [...] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer [...] Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as applying a scalar value (i.e. “applying it”) to particle positions and processing circuitry to implement the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer. Specifically, this limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, i.e. repetitive calculations, which a person can reasonably perform with/without the aid of pen/paper. Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “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... 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). Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. 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, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of applying a scalar value (i.e. “applying it”) to particle positions and processing circuitry to implement the abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer are directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for claims 2-20 below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 6-10, 12, 15-18, and 20.
Applicants arguments, filed 11/10/2025, have been fully considered but were not
persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained. See 35 USC §103 analysis below. Note new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Applicant argues [Pg.3 Ln.19] that the previously cited references (Sakharnykh-Bowers) within Office Action dated 07/23/2025, alone or in combination do not disclose claim 15’s amended limitation “the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in 35 USC §103 analysis section below, Bowers discloses the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type (“Positions on a node are represented by integer triples (ix, iy, iz). The binary representations of these inters uses an IEEE floating point format:
PNG
media_image1.png
63
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positions are represented in a hybrid fixed point/floating point format...Hybrid fixed point/floating point positions (i.e. value type) may provide one or more of the following advantages: (1) It allows floating point calculations to be performed bit-level exactly on nodes in the vicinity of nearby positions” Bowers [P.0203-205]. Examiner interprets “floating point” positions to mean “value type” due to Applicant’s disclosure “the first value type may be a 32-bit floating point” [Spec. P.0027]. Examiner also interprets floating point position to include a scalar value based on bit length because “representation can comprise a floating point representation with an exponent part and a fractional part. In some examples, the integer representation of location information uses the fractional part of the floating point representation” Bowers [P.0014]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument wasn’t persuasive.
Applicants remaining arguments [Pg.3] with respect to amended claims
and the combination of Sakharnykh-Bowers (previously referenced art within Office Action dated 07/23/2025) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 8-20 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (Mental Processes), given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
partitioning a plurality of particles into a plurality of cells, at least one cell
of the plurality of cells including a dimension and encompassing one or more of the plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Mental Processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer, since a person can reasonably evaluate a plurality of particles and then partition those particles into a plurality of cells where at least one cell includes a dimension, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
after applying the scalar value, truncating the position values of the
plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Mental Processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer, since a person can reasonably evaluate the position values of a plurality of particles and then truncate those position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles
and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position value of the first particle and the truncated position value of the second particle; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Mental Processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. This limitation is directed towards performing a mental process on a generic computer, since a person can reasonably evaluate truncated position values of a first and second particle, then determine (observe, evaluate) a distance between the particles based on the particle truncated position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and analyzing a behavior of a particle system that includes the plurality of
particles based at least on the distance. (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably analyze (observe, evaluate) a particular behavior of a particle system based at least on the distance, with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
applying a scalar value to one or more position values respectively
corresponding to a set of one or more position coordinates that indicate a respective position of one or more individual particles of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on the dimension and is applied to the set of one or more position coordinates (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how the scalar value is determined and in what way the scalar value is “applied”.)
processing circuitry to perform operations, the operations comprising:
(The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) or other exception on a computer.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards mere instructions to apply an exception. When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Thus, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), The courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 8):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (Mental Processes), given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 8, the claim recites the limitations of:
after applying the scalar value, truncating the position values corresponding to the plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate the position values of a plurality of particles and then truncate those position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the first particle and the second particle; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate truncated position values of a first and second particle, then determine (observe, evaluate) a distance between the particles based on the particle truncated position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and determining a behavior of the particle system based at least on the distance. (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (observe, evaluate, opinion) a behavior of a particle system based at least on the distance, with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 8):
As per claim 8, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to at least one position value respectively corresponding to at least one particle of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis and bounds a dynamic range of the at least one position value; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how the scalar value is determined and in what way the scalar value is “applied”.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 8):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards mere instructions to apply an exception.
When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Thus, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), The courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 15):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (Mental Processes), given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 15, the claim recites the limitations of:
after applying the scalar value, truncating position values corresponding to the plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate the position values of a plurality of particles and then truncate those position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
after converting the position values, determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the different value type of the first particle and the second particle; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate truncated position values of a first and second particle, then determine (observe, evaluate) a distance between the particles based on the particle truncated position values, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
and determining a behavior of the particle system based at least on the distance. (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (observe, evaluate, opinion) a behavior of a particle system based at least on the distance, with or without the aid of pen and paper.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 15):
As per claim 15, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to a position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles, the scalar value based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how the scalar value is determined and in what way the scalar value is “applied”.)
after truncating the position values, converting the position values to a different value type using the scalar value in which the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the limitation fails to recite details of how the scalar value is used to convert the position values and in what way (i.e. how) the scalar value is determined.)
Step 2B (Claim 15):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards mere instructions to apply an exception.
When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Thus, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(d)/(f).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), The courts have recognized the following applicable computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, wherein the operations further comprise translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the at least one particle, wherein the position value that is truncated is the position value of the cells in the local cell coordinate system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation elaborates on the position values, thus further amounts to an Abstract Idea (Mental Processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites, wherein the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle of the plurality of particles are in the same cell of the plurality of cells or directly adjacent cells of the plurality of cells. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites, storing the truncated position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (storing data, MPEP 2106.05(g)). See 2106.05(d) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;)
and before determining the distance, removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle are determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed. (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends.)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 The system of claim 4, further recites, wherein the operations further comprise, after removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value, changing a value type of the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle is determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed and value type changed. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites, wherein the dimension is based at least on a distance at which one or more interactions between particles are not considered during the analyzing the behavior of the particle system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 further recites, wherein the operations further comprise calculating one or more interactions between the first particle and the second particle using the distance between the first particle and the second particle, wherein the behavior of the particle system is determined based at least on the calculated interactions. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 further recites, further comprising calculating interactions between the first particle and the second particle using the distance between the first particle and the second particle, wherein the behavior of the particle system is determined based at least on the calculated interactions. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 further recites, further comprising partitioning the particle system into a plurality of cells, at least one cell of the plurality of cells including a dimension and encompassing one or more of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is further based at least on the dimension of the cells. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11, the method of claim 10, further recites further comprising translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the plurality of particles, wherein the position value that is truncated is the position value of the cells in the local cell coordinate system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12, the method of claim 10, further recites wherein the dimension is based at least on a distance at which one or more interactions between particles of the plurality of particles are not considered during the determining the behavior of the particle system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 further recites, storing the truncated position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles; (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (storing data, MPEP 2106.05(g)). See 2106.05(d) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;)
and before determining the distance, removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle are determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed. (As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends.)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14, the method of claim 13, further recites, further comprising after removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value, changing a value type of the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle and the second particle are determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed and the value type changed. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 further recites, further comprising partitioning the particle system into a plurality of cells, at least one cell of the plurality of cells including a dimension and encompassing one or more of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is further based at least on the dimension of the cells. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17, the method of claim 16, further recites, further comprising translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based at least on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the plurality of particles, wherein the position value that is truncated is the position value of the cells in the local cell coordinate system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18, the method of claim 16, further recites wherein the dimension is based at least on a distance at which interactions between particles are not considered during the determining the behavior of the particle system. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19, the method of claim 16, further recites wherein the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle of the plurality of particles are in the same cell of the plurality of cells or directly adjacent cells of the plurality of cells. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 further recites, further comprising calculating one or more interactions between the first particle and the second particle using the distance between the first particle and the second particle, wherein the behavior of the particle system is determined based at least on the calculated interactions. As drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation further elaborates the mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))) established within the claim from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakharnykh US Pub. No. 2014/0257769 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sakharnykh”), in view of Sun et al. US Pub. No 2021/0086877 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Sakharnykh discloses, processing circuitry to perform operations, the operations comprising: (“Because the processing unit, e.g. GPU or CPU, typically allows a number of concurrent thread blocks to be simultaneously active on a single multiprocessor, this process advantageously provides sufficient parallelism to populate the multiprocessors and allow multithreading to keep the processing cores productive.” Sakharnykh [P.0009])
partitioning a plurality of particles into a plurality of cells, (“a substance space of a certain state is divided (i.e. partitioned) into a plurality of cells, each cell containing a plurality of particles.” Sakharnykh [P.0045])
at least one cell of the plurality of cells including a dimension and encompassing one or more of the plurality of particles; (“FIG. 3A illustrates... The current center cell 310 contains two center particles 311 and 312 that are surrounded by 27 immediately adjacent cells in three dimensions” Sakharnykh [P.0043])
after applying the scalar value, truncating the position values of the plurality of particles; (“Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054]. Examiner interprets compaction operation as truncating the position values of the particles due to Applicant’s disclosure “ the second value type may include fewer bits than the first value type... the simulation system110 may truncate the values of the locations of the particles from the length of the first value type to the length of the second value type.” [Spec. P.0027-28])
determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position value of the first particle and the truncated position value of the second particle; (“Then a compaction operation (i.e. truncated position values) is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054], wherein the cut-off distance comprises determining a distance between a first and second particle.)
and analyzing a behavior of a particle system that includes the plurality of particles based at least on the distance. (“if it is determined that a distance between a neighbor particle and the center particle is greater than a cut-off distance, the neighbor particle can be removed from computation for forces acted on the center particle. ” Sakharnykh [P.0046])
Sakharnykh fails to specifically disclose applying a scalar value to one or more position values respectively corresponding to a set of one or more position coordinates that indicate a respective position of one or more individual particles of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on the dimension and is applied to the set of one or more position coordinates.
However, Sun discloses applying a scalar value to one or more position values respectively corresponding to a set of one or more position coordinates that indicate a respective position of one or more individual particles of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on the dimension and is applied to the set of one or more position coordinates; (“discretizing based on uniformly distributed particles, as shown in equation (1.1.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
232
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, ϕ and Φ represent arbitrary scalars and vectors respectively, dm represents a number of dimensions of the problem under study: two dimensions or three dimensions, N is a number of particles in an affected area of the relevant particles; n0 is a particle density at initial time, r represents a particle spacing, and ri and rj represent the coordinates of particle i and particle j respectively rij=|ri−rj|.” Sun [P.0016])
Sakharnykh and Sun are analogous art as both patents address simulation of particle-based systems and involve dividing a domain into discrete elements (particles and/or cells). Each uses computational methods to simulate interactions between these elements, and both mention updating positions and velocities based on computed interactions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakharnykh’s method for molecular dynamics simulation to include applying scalar values to particle positions, as disclosed by Sun, in order to discretize particles for computation and analysis.
Regarding claim 3, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 1, Sakharnykh further discloses, wherein the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle of the plurality of particles are in the same cell of the plurality of cells or directly adjacent cells of the plurality of cells. (“dividing the substance space into a plurality of cells, a respective cell comprising a first number of center particles and surrounded by a second number of neighbor particles” Sakharnykh [P.0010])
Sakharnykh discloses the limitations of claim 3 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Sun as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 1, Sakharnykh further discloses, storing the truncated position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles; (“a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction (i.e. truncation) operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance... the binary mask can be saved in the shared memory.” Sakharnykh [P.0054])
and before determining the distance, removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle are determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed. (“Then a compaction operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance. Thus, the threads in the warp are assigned to process force computation only on these selected particles” Sakharnykh [P.0054]. Examiner interprets the force computation to include determining a distance between particles.)
Sakharnykh discloses the limitations of claim 4 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Sun as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 1, Sakharnykh further discloses, wherein the dimension is based at least on a distance at which one or more interactions between particles are not considered during the analyzing the behavior of the particle system. (“particles beyond the cut-off range can be removed from the force computation to further improve the efficiency... For example, a warp may first compute the distances between the corresponding center particle and each neighbor particle in the corresponding group. Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance. Thus, the threads in the warp are assigned to process force computation only on these selected particles” Sakharnykh [P.0054])
Sakharnykh discloses the limitations of claim 6 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Sun as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 1, Sakharnykh further discloses, wherein the operations further comprise calculating one or more interactions between the first particle and the second particle using the distance between the first particle and the second particle, (“At 404, pairwise interaction force between each center particle and each of its neighbor particles is calculated based on the distance thereof.” Sakharnykh [P.0046])
wherein the behavior of the particle system is determined based at least on the calculated interactions. (“Interaction forces acted on each center particle by all neighbor particles are accumulated to generate the global results... Thus, each global result represents the accumulative force acted on a particular particle in the substance body and can be used to predict the motion, or location of the particular particle” Sakharnykh [P.0046])
Sakharnykh discloses the limitations of claim 7 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Sun as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sakharnykh discloses,
after applying the scalar value, truncating the position values corresponding to the plurality of particles; (“Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054]. Examiner interprets compaction operation as truncating the position values of the particles due to Applicant’s disclosure “ the second value type may include fewer bits than the first value type... the simulation system110 may truncate the values of the locations of the particles from the length of the first value type to the length of the second value type.” [Spec. P.0027-28])
determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the first particle and the second particle; (“Then a compaction operation (i.e. truncated position values) is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054], wherein the cut-off distance comprises determining a distance between a first and second particle.)
and determining a behavior of the particle system based at least on the distance. (“if it is determined that a distance between a neighbor particle and the center particle is greater than a cut-off distance, the neighbor particle can be removed from computation for forces acted on the center particle. ” Sakharnykh [P.0046])
Sakharnykh fails to specifically disclose during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to at least one position value respectively corresponding to at least one particle of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis and bounds a dynamic range of the at least one position value.
However, Sun discloses during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to at least one position value respectively corresponding to at least one particle of the plurality of particles, wherein the scalar value is based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis and bounds a dynamic range of the at least one position value; (“discretizing based on uniformly distributed particles, as shown in equation (1.1.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
232
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, ϕ and Φ represent arbitrary scalars and vectors respectively, dm represents a number of dimensions of the problem under study: two dimensions or three dimensions, N is a number of particles in an affected area of the relevant particles; n0 is a particle density at initial time, r represents a particle spacing, and ri and rj represent the coordinates of particle i and particle j respectively rij=|ri−rj|. A kernel function W (rij) and a parameter λ are defined as equation (1.1.2) and equation (1.1.3):
PNG
media_image3.png
212
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, re represents an effective range (i.e. dynamic range) of particles interaction, and the particle density n is defined in equation (1.1.4):
PNG
media_image4.png
58
393
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” Sun [P.0016-17]. The effective range is interpreted as a dynamic range because “In order to keep the particle distribution more regular and improve the stability and accuracy of the calculation, the technology of particle displacement shifting and collision processing (mainly for free surface particles) are adopted respectively. In this technique, the displacement of the particles is adjusted directly, rather than by applying a force. After each time step, the particle position is slightly displaced to make its distribution regular.” Sun [P.0018])
Sakharnykh and Sun are analogous art as both patents address simulation of particle-based systems and involve dividing a domain into discrete elements (particles and/or cells). Each uses computational methods to simulate interactions between these elements, and both mention updating positions and velocities based on computed interactions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakharnykh’s method for molecular dynamics simulation to include applying scalar values based on analysis parameters and which bounds a dynamic range of particle positions, as disclosed by Sun, in order to “ to keep the particle distribution more regular and improve the stability and accuracy of the calculation.” Sun [P.0018])
Claim 9 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 9, Sakharnykh further discloses, further comprising partitioning the particle system into a plurality of cells, “a substance space of a certain state is divided (i.e. partitioned) into a plurality of cells, each cell containing a plurality of particles.” Sakharnykh [P.0045])
at least one cell of the plurality of cells including a dimension and encompassing one or more of the plurality of particles, (“FIG. 3A illustrates...The current center cell 310 contains two center particles 311 and 312 that are surrounded by 27 immediately adjacent cells in three dimensions” Sakharnykh [P.0043])
wherein the scalar value is further based at least on the dimension of the cells. (“Interaction forces acted on each center particle by all neighbor particles are accumulated to generate the global results which are stored to the global memory... each global result (i.e. scalar value) represents the accumulative force acted on a particular particle in the substance body and can be used to predict the motion, or location of the particular particle” [P.0046]. Examiner interprets “global result” to mean “scalar value” due to Applicant’s disclosure “the scalar value may be based on the interaction distance.” Sakharnykh [Spec. P.0035])
Sakharnykh discloses the limitations of claim 10 and maintains the same rationale for combination with Sun as claim 9.
Claim 12 the method of claim 10, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2, 5, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakharnykh, in view of Sun, in further view of Bowers US Pub. No. 20080234990 (hereinafter referred to as “Bowers”).
Regarding claim 2, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the limitations of claim 1, Sakharnykh further discloses, wherein the position value that is truncated is the position value of the cells in the local cell coordinate system. (“Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation (i.e. truncating) is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054]. It is understood that the cut-off distance includes the local cell coordinate system because “Positions of all particles with respect to a coordinate system defined for the substance body are identified at 402 ... and only particles in the 27 most adjacent cells, including the other particles in the center cell, surrounding a center particle are considered as neighbor particles for force computation.” Sakharnykh [P.0045])
Sakharnykh-Sun fail to specifically disclose wherein the operations further comprise translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the at least one particle.
However, Bowers discloses wherein the operations further comprise translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the at least one particle, (”by implicitly associating each group with a single position analogous to the position of a particle... This point is the group "anchor point". The anchor point is... capable of converting (i.e. translating) a group stored in terms of global particle ids to a compatible set of local particle ids and so forth.” Bowers [P.0254]. Examiner interprets “anchor point” to be within local cell due to Applicant’s disclose “one or more of the cells may include a local origin as a reference point for a local coordinate system within each of the cells.” Bowers [Spec. P.0044])
Bowers is analogous art as it relates to particle interactions and the systems / methods used to simulate and compute those interactions. Bowers discloses “an approach to distributed computation of multiple body interactions in a region uses multiple processing modules, with each of the processing modules being associated with a corresponding portion of the region. A number of coordinate frames of reference are established.” Bowers [P.0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate truncated particle position values, as taught by Sakharnykh, with translating a global position value for at least one particle from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system, as disclosed in Bowers, to ensure calculations only involve positions within the immediate vicinity of a particle (e.g. Bowers [P.0200]) “resulting in less particles for computation and storing and thereby additionally improving execution speed” Sakharnykh [P.0054].
Regarding claim 5, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the system of claim 4, but fail to specifically disclose, wherein the operations further comprise, after removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value, changing a value type of the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle is determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed and value type changed
However, Bowers discloses wherein the operations further comprise, after removing the scalar value applied to the truncated position value, changing a value type of the truncated position value such that the distance between the first particle of the plurality of particles and the second particle is determined using the truncated position value with the scalar value removed and value type changed. (“positions are represented in a hybrid fixed point/floating point format... Hybrid fixed point/floating point positions (i.e. value type) may provide one or more of the following advantages: (1) It allows floating point calculations to be performed bit-level exactly on nodes in the vicinity of nearby positions....calculations on positions do not have to take into account a code precision dependent scaling factor (i.e. scalar value removed)” [P.0203-206], “a node need only communicate with neighbors responsible for points no further away than the maximum possible distance between a particle in an interaction (i.e. determine distance between a first and second particle)” [P.0191]. Examiner interprets “floating point” positions to mean “value type” due to Applicant’s disclosure “the first value type may be a 32-bit floating point” [Spec. P.0027])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakharnykh-Sun to include particle floating point positions, as Bowers discloses, so that “nodes can make decisions consistently based on the results of floating point computations without need for additional communication, increasing code performance” Bowers [P.0204], and “additionally improving execution speed” Sakharnykh [P.0054].
Regarding claim 11, Sakharnykh-Sun disclose the method of claim 10, Sakharnykh further discloses,
wherein the position value that is truncated is the position value of the cells in the local cell coordinate system. (“Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation (i.e. truncating) is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” [P.0054]. It is understood that the cut-off distance includes the local cell coordinate system because “Positions of all particles with respect to a coordinate system defined for the substance body are identified at 402 ... and only particles in the 27 most adjacent cells, including the other particles in the center cell, surrounding a center particle are considered as neighbor particles for force computation.” Sakharnykh [P.0045])
Sakharnykh fails to specifically disclose further comprising translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the plurality of particles.
However, Bowers discloses further comprising translating a global position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles from a global coordinate system to a local cell coordinate system based on the cells of the plurality of cells that include the plurality of particles. (”by implicitly associating each group with a single position analogous to the position of a particle... This point is the group "anchor point". The anchor point is... capable of converting (i.e. translating) a group stored in terms of global particle ids to a compatible set of local particle ids and so forth.” Bowers [P.0254]. Examiner interprets “anchor point” to be within local cell due to Applicant’s disclose “one or more of the cells may include a local origin as a reference point for a local coordinate system within each of the cells.” [Spec. P.0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakharnykh-Sun to include particle floating point positions, as Bowers discloses, so that “nodes can make decisions consistently based on the results of floating point computations without need for additional communication, increasing code performance” Bowers [P.0204], and “additionally improving execution speed” Sakharnykh [P.0054].
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Sakharnykh discloses,
after applying the scalar value, truncating position values corresponding to the plurality of particles; (“Accordingly, a binary mask comprising indexes "1"s and "0"s can be created to identify the neighbor particles in and out of the cut-off distance respectively. Then a compaction operation is performed on the mask to select the particles within the cut-off distance” Sakharnykh [P.0054]. Examiner interprets compaction operation as truncating the position values of the particles due to Applicant’s disclosure “ the second value type may include fewer bits than the first value type... the simulation system110 may truncate the values of the locations of the particles from the length of the first value type to the length of the second value type.” [Spec. P.0027-28])
and determining a behavior of the particle system based at least on the distance. (“if it is determined that a distance between a neighbor particle and the center particle is greater than a cut-off distance, the neighbor particle can be removed from computation for forces acted on the center particle.” Sakharnykh [P.0046])
Sakharnykh fails to specifically disclose during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to a position value for at least one particle of the plurality of particles, the scalar value based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis; converting the position values to a different value type using the scalar value in which the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type; and determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the different value type of the first particle and the second particle.
However, Sun discloses during an analysis of behavior of a plurality of particles in a particle system, applying a scalar value to at least one position value respectively corresponding to at least one particle of the plurality of particles, the scalar value based at least on one or more parameters for the analysis; (“discretizing based on uniformly distributed particles, as shown in equation (1.1.1).
PNG
media_image2.png
232
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, ϕ and Φ represent arbitrary scalars and vectors respectively, dm represents a number of dimensions of the problem under study: two dimensions or three dimensions, N is a number of particles in an affected area of the relevant particles; n0 is a particle density at initial time, r represents a particle spacing, and ri and rj represent the coordinates (i.e. position value) of particle i and particle j respectively rij=|ri−rj|. A kernel function W (rij) and a parameter λ are defined as equation (1.1.2) and equation (1.1.3):
PNG
media_image3.png
212
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, re represents an effective range of particles interaction, and the particle density n is defined in equation (1.1.4):
PNG
media_image4.png
58
393
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” Sun [P.0016-17])
Sakharnykh and Sun are analogous art as both patents address simulation of particle-based systems and involve dividing a domain into discrete elements (particles and/or cells). Each uses computational methods to simulate interactions between these elements, and both mention updating positions and velocities based on computed interactions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakharnykh’s method for molecular dynamics simulation to include applying scalar values based on analysis parameters and which bounds a dynamic range of particle positions, as disclosed by Sun, in order to “ to keep the particle distribution more regular and improve the stability and accuracy of the calculation.” Sun [P.0018])
Sakharnykh-Sun fail to disclose converting the position values to a different value type using the scalar value in which the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type; and determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the different value type of the first particle and the second particle.
However, Bowers discloses converting the position values to a different value type using the scalar value in which the scalar value is determined based at least on a bit length of the different value type; determining a distance between a first particle of the plurality of particles and a second particle of the plurality of particles based at least on the truncated position values of the different value type of the first particle and the second particle; (“Positions on a node are represented by integer triples (ix, iy, iz). The binary representations of these inters uses an IEEE floating point format:
PNG
media_image1.png
63
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positions are represented in a hybrid fixed point/floating point format...Hybrid fixed point/floating point positions (i.e. value type) may provide one or more of the following advantages: (1) It allows floating point calculations to be performed bit-level exactly on nodes in the vicinity of nearby positions” Bowers [P.0203-205], “a node need only communicate with neighbors responsible for points no further away than the maximum possible distance between a particle in an interaction (i.e. determine distance between a first and second particle)” Bowers [P.0191]. Examiner interprets “floating point” positions to mean “value type” due to Applicant’s disclosure “the first value type may be a 32-bit floating point” [Spec. P.0027]. Examiner also interprets floating point position to include a scalar value because “representation can comprise a floating point representation with an exponent part and a fractional part. In some examples, the integer representation of location information uses the fractional part of the floating point representation” Bowers [P.0014])
Bowers is analogous art as it relates to particle interactions and the systems / methods used to simulate and compute those interactions. Bowers discloses “an approach to distributed computation of multiple body interactions in a region uses multiple processing modules, with each of the processing modules being associated with a corresponding portion of the region. A number of coordinate frames of reference are established.” Bowers [P.0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant' s effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakharnykh-Sun to incorporate differing particle position value types using a scalar value based on at least a bit length of a different value type, as Bowers discloses, because “It allows floating point calculations to be performed bit-level exactly on nodes in the vicinity of nearby positions [...] increasing code performance” Bowers [P.0204].
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lienhart, Gerhard, Andreas Kugel, and Reinhard Männer. "Using Floating-Point Arithmetic on FPGAs to Accelerate Scientific N-Body Simulations." Proceedings. 10th Annual IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines. IEEE, 2002. “This paper investigates the usage of floating-point arithmetic on FPGAs for N-Body simulation in natural science.” [Abstract]
Warren, Michael S., and John K. Salmon. "A parallel hashed oct-tree n-body algorithm." Proceedings of the 1993 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing. 1993. “The accuracy of the force calculations is analytically bounded, and can be adjusted via a user defined parameter between a few percent relative accuracy, down to machine arithmetic accuracy.” [Abstract]
Tang, Yu-Hang, and George Em Karniadakis. "Accelerating dissipative particle dynamics simulations on GPUs: Algorithms, numerics and applications." Computer Physics Communications 185.11 (2014): 2809-2822. “A large-scale simulation of spontaneous vesicle formation consisting of 128 million particles was conducted to further illustrate the practicality of our code in real-world applications.” [Abstract]
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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186