DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/08/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1 and 11 have
been amended, no claim is added or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, Step 2A, Prong one in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
… Thus, by the present invention providing configurability by way of the recited user selection and configuration of the SEs to use in simulation and by the present invention providing interaction of the SEs with the simulation core engine by way of the recite propagation of sequential messages between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine (whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine and wherein conditions for beginning a simulation are complete), an improved simulation system is provided beyond that of "existing simulators like MQSim and Amber."
M.P.E.P. 2106.04(d) notes that:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
- An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). [Emphasis added.]
Here, the claimed simulation system represents an improvement in the functioning of the computer running the simulations.
Hence, for this reason alone, the 101 rejection should be removed.
Moreover, MPEP § 2106 states:
A. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process
Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets
as recited by the claims"); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1376, 99 USPQ2d at 1699 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 97 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that "could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind").
Here, the claims recite steps (such as for example storing the SEs in a repository, displaying to a user the set of SEs provided, receiving user input for selecting and configuring the SEs from the set of the SEs to use in the simulating, and propagating sequential messages between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine) which the human mind as a practical matter cannot perform entirely in itself.
For this additional reason, the 101 rejection should be removed.
(see Response filed 09/08/2025 [pages 9-12]).
With respect to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do recite a mental process.
Claims 1 and 11: The limitations of “determine a logical relationship between selected SEs from the set of the SEs” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Please refer to the current Office Action for a detailed explanation of this analysis. Therefore, the limitation is direct to a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For example, the additional limitation of claim 1: “a set of simulation entities (SEs) including a host SE and storage component SEs corresponding to hardware and software components of a storage device to be simulated; a repository storing the SEs; a relation manager processor configured to a) display to a user the set of SEs provided, b) receive user input for selection and configuration of the SEs to use in the simulation system …; … sequential messages are propagated between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine, and wherein at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., providing simulation entities, storing the SEs, receiving input, propagating messages including attributes to simulation core engine) and data output (i.e., display the provided set of SEs and notice simulation core engine to begin simulation) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The additional limitations merely recite conventional computer operations for displaying information, receiving sections, and routing data between software modules. In particular, the additional limitations of “sequential messages are propagated between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine, and wherein at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation” merely describes routine data handling steps normally perform between software components during initialization or configuration of any simulation system. The limitations do not improve how the computer itself operates, do not enhance the processor or memory performance, and do not provide any technological improvement to computer architecture or to other technology or technical field. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not integrated judicial exception into a practical application and does not amounts to significantly more. Please refer to the current Office Action for a detailed explanation of this analysis.
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,” pages 12-19, filed
09/08/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “ … display to a user the set of SEs provided” should read “… display to a user the set of the SEs”
Claim 11 recites “displaying to a user the set of SEs provided” should read “displaying to a user the set of the SEs”.
Claim 11 recites “ at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation” should read as “at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin the simulation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a relation manager processor configured to a) display …, b) receive user input …, c)
determine a logical relationship …” The “relation manager processor” is interpreted as physical processor described in the instant application [0018], “the term 'processor' or the like refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores suitable for processing data, such as computer program instructions.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a repository storing the SEs” in claim 1. This limitation uses generic placeholder "repository" (Prong A); the term "repository" is modified by functional language "storing the SEs" (Prong B); and the term "repository" is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation "a repository storing the SEs" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In the instant specification, [0064], “simulation platform 15 stores in repository 52 a set of SEs (shown in FIG. 5 as device 1 SE, device 2 SE, device 3 SE, device 4 SE) where each SE is an algorithmic implementation of some HW or FW component related to a specific product or group of products or/and specific algorithm revision.” [0018], “The present invention can be implemented …, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; …; and/or a processor, such as a processor suitable for executing instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. …, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being suitable for performing a task may be implemented as a general device or circuit component that is configured or otherwise programmed to perform the task at a given time or as a specific device or circuit component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term 'processor' or the like refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores suitable for processing data, such as computer program instructions.” Therefore, the “a repository” is interpreted as memory or structured digital storage system implemented by processor (i.e., a processor along with a software) storing the SEs, and equivalents thereof.
“a simulation core engine configured to perform simulations using the selected SEs” in claim 1. This limitation uses generic placeholder" simulation core engine " (Prong A); the term " simulation core engine " is modified by functional language " configured to perform simulations using the selected SEs " (Prong B); and the term "simulation core engine" is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation "a simulation core engine configured to perform simulations using the selected SEs " invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In the instant specification, [0067], “Simulation platform 15 also includes a simulation core engine 54 which is programmed to: perform simulation …” [0018], “The present invention can be implemented …, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; …; and/or a processor, such as a processor suitable for executing instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. …, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being suitable for performing a task may be implemented as a general device or circuit component that is configured or otherwise programmed to perform the task at a given time or as a specific device or circuit component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term 'processor' or the like refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores suitable for processing data, such as computer program instructions.” Therefore, the “simulation core engine” is interpreted as software implemented by processor (i.e., a processor along with a software) to perform simulations, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a repository storing the SEs” and “storing the SEs in a repository”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “the SEs” refers to a set of simulation entities (SEs) including host simulation entity and storage components simulation entities OR only storage components SEs. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a repository storing the SEs” as a repository storing the set of the SEs.
Claims 1 recites “receive user input for selection and configuration of the SEs …,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “the SEs” refers to a set of simulation entities (SEs) including host simulation entity and storage components SEs OR only storage components SEs OR new subset SEs selected from the set of the SEs OR something else. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “receive user input for selection and configuration of the SEs …” as receive user input for selection and configuration of SEs from the set of the SEs …
Claim 11 recites “receiving user input for selecting and configuring the SEs from the set of the SEs …,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “the SEs” refers to storage components SEs OR new subset of SEs selected from the set of the SEs OR something else. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “receiving user input for selecting and configuring the SEs from the set of the SEs …,” as receiving user input for selecting and configuring SEs from the set of the SEs …
Claim 11 recites the limitation "propagating sequential messages between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine …". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “… without affecting other SEs,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “other SEs” refers to a set of simulation entities (SEs) including host simulation entity and storage components simulation entities OR only storage components SEs. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “… without affecting other SEs,” as … without affecting other SEs of the storage components SEs.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the limitation "the configuration information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 20 recite the limitation " the configuration files". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the limitation “accept the user input for selection of the SEs …,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “selection of the SEs” refers to selection … of the SEs as disclosed in claim 1 or new selection of the SEs from the set of the SEs. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “accept the user input for selection of the SEs and for selection of the configuration files” as accept the user input for the selection of the SEs from the set of the SEs and selection of configuration files.
The remaining claims are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-10 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claims 11-20 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “determine a logical relationship between selected SEs from the set of the SEs” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating descriptions or attribution of the simulation entities, and mentally identify how they logically related to one another, such as identifying which entities interact, which depend on another, or how they should be connected (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). Additionally, in the instant specification, [0071], “… the graphs may be generated by a user …” [0086], “…In the illustrated example, "L2P_RND_SE" is a random number generator to randomly select a target die for a model. With the help of SEs Relation Manager 56, a user can replace "L2P_RND_SE" with L2P_SNAPSHOT_SE (or other15 existing/new Shar Resource for L2P simulation), which can be a snapshot of the attributes of L2P from a real drive after a precondition.” [0087], “… In this case, with the help of SEs Relation Manager 56, a user can reconfigure the SEs graph to that shown in FIG. 7B. This reconfiguration (appearing as the difference between the SE graphs in FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B) is one important aspect of simulation platform 15.” The specification explains that user may generate or reconfigure the SE graph and replace one SE with another. The disclosures indicate that the logic relationships between SEs can be determined manually by a user. Therefore, “determine a logical relationship between selected SEs” can be considered as a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under
Prong I step 2A.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
Claim 1, The limitation recites “a simulation core engine configured to perform simulations using the selected SEs, …” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be reasonably considered to represent mathematical concept, specifically:
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
The limitations of “… perform simulations using the selected SEs …” can be considered to represent mathematical concepts. In the specification: [0026], “a simulation SE is the program code of a mathematical algorithm representing the functions of an object of interest, with the code being executed by a core simulator.” The specification explains that the simulation is performed by executing SEs, and each SE is defined as program code of a mathematical algorithm, the claimed simulation amount to the execution of mathematical relationships and calculations. Therefore, the limitation represents mathematical concepts and fall within the mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 11 recites the similar elements as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1 and 11 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - " a repository” and “a relation manager processor” and “a simulation core engine,” which are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Further, the additional limitation of claim 1: “a set of simulation entities (SEs) including a host SE and storage component SEs corresponding to hardware and software components of a storage device to be simulated; … storing the SEs; … configured to a) display to a user the set of SEs provided, b) receive user input for selection and configuration of the SEs to use in the simulation system …; … sequential messages are propagated between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine, and wherein at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation,” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., providing simulation entities, storing the SEs, receiving input, propagating messages including attributes to simulation core engine) and data output (i.e., display the provided set of SEs and notice simulation core engine to begin simulation) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Examiner note: adding steps of propagating messages with attributes to simulation core engine and output notification to start the simulation executed by generic computer to a process that only recites determine logical relationship of between SEs (mental process) and simulation of using a program code of a mathematical algorithm (a mathematical relationship and calculations) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of determine logical relationship and simulation of using a program code of a mathematical algorithm.
Further, the additional limitation of claim 1: “a simulation core engine configured to perform simulations …,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform simulation function at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitations merely recite conventional computer operations for displaying information, receiving sections, and routing data between software modules. In particular, the additional limitations of “sequential messages are propagated between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine, and wherein at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation” merely describes routine data handling steps normally perform between software components during initialization or configuration of any simulation system. The limitations do not improve how the computer itself operates, do not enhance the processor or memory performance, and do not provide any technological improvement to computer architecture or to other technology or technical field. Instead, the claimed additional limitations use a generic computer as a tool to perform information processing function, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05(f), (g)).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 11 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 11: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
In this case, the additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the limitation of “sequential messages are propagated between the selected SEs and to the simulation core engine whereby attributes of the selected SEs are passed to the simulation core engine, and wherein at an end of messaging conditions for beginning a simulation are complete and a call is made to the simulation core engine to begin simulation” merely describe generic computer/controller functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art.
For example, Elbery (“An Integrated Architecture for Simulation and Modeling,” published in 2015) discloses a pre-simulation workflow includes the integrated simulators (OPNET and INTEGRATION) exchange a sequence of control messages before simulation. The simulators first send two-way Hello Messages and then synchronize the simulation parameters (e.g., simulation duration, network map size, location update interval, maximum number of concurrent running vehicles and number of signals). The parameters are used later by the modules when OPNET starts the simulation and reads the configuration parameters to initialize each module’s state and processes. Only after this initialization and parameter exchange complete successfully that the system send a “Start Simulation” message (code 40), which causes OPNET to start the simulation and issue start-simulation interrupts to the modules.
Therefore, the additional limitations merely instruct a generic computer to exchange initialization messages and start simulation signals in a routine manner, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” under Step 2B, and independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the simulation core engine is configured to create for a first SE of the selected SEs a first message and a second message, and the second message is forwarded to a second SE of the selected SEs.”
This merely specifies data (i.e., message) is created for a first SE by simulation core engine and propagated to second SE ; therefore, it merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform generation function to generate messages at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, and merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., propagating messages) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “The system of claim 2, wherein the simulation core engine simulating the second SE performs at least one simulated action based on the second message, the simulation core engine forwards the second message to a third SE of the selected SEs, the simulation core engine simulating the third SE performs another simulated action based on the second message and releases the second message, and the simulation core engine completes the simulation in response to the release of the second message.”
This merely specifies data (i.e., message) is created for a first SE by simulation core engine and propagated to second SE for further simulation and propagated to third SE to perform another simulation, then release the data when the simulation core engine completes the simulation; therefore, it merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform generation function to generate messages at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., propagating messages) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the storage component SEs comprise independent SEs which can be exchanged for different simulations without affecting other SEs.”
This merely further defines storage component SEs include independent SEs are used for simulation refers to claim 1; therefore, it is merely a description of storage component SEs are provided. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the sequential messages have a parent-child relationship with a child message generated in response to a previously generated parent message.”
This merely further defines sequential message as a parent-child relationship, and child message is generated is based on parent message; therefore, it is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data output (i.e., messages propagation between SEs) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “The system of claim 1, further comprising a repository of configuration files, wherein the configuration files have information about attributes of different hardware and software components of different storage devices.”
This merely specifies a computer storage or database stores configuration files including information about attributes of hardware and software components of different storage devices; therefore, it merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., repository stores configuration files) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “The system of claim 6, wherein the relation manager processor is configured to build a graph depicting the logical relationship between the selected SEs by loading configuration information from the configuration files and by loading the selected SEs.”
This merely specifies a graph is generated to depicting the logical relationship between the selected SEs by loading configuration information from the configuration files and by loading the selected SEs; therefore, it merely an insignificant extra-solution activities as Insignificant application (i.e., display logical relationship based configuration files and selected SEs) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the relation manager processor is configured to build a graph depicting the logical relationship between the selected SEs.”
This merely specifies a graph is generated to depicting the logical relationship between the selected SEs; therefore, it merely an insignificant extra-solution activities as Insignificant application (i.e., display logical relationship for selected SEs) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “The system of claim 8, wherein the relation manager processor is configured to provide the user with a visual depiction of the selected SEs, the logical relationship between the selected SEs, and the configuration information.”
This merely specifies displaying the logical relationship between the selected SEs, and the configuration information; therefore, it merely an insignificant extra-solution activities as Insignificant application (i.e., display selected SEs, logical relationship between selected SEs and configuration information) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “The system of claim 8, wherein the relation manager processor is configured to accept the user input for selection of the SEs and for selection of the configuration files.”
This merely specifies input for selection of the SEs and for selection of the configuration files; therefore, it merely an insignificant extra-solution activities as data gathering (i.e., accepting user input) activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 12-20 recite substantially the same elements as claims 2-10, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35
U.S.C 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the closest prior arts found, Gouk (“Amber: Enabling Precise Full-System Simulation with Detailed Modeling of All SSD Resources,” published in 2018), discloses a new SSD simulation framework, Simple SSD 2.0, namely Amber, which accommodates all SSD resources in a full system environment and emulates all software stacks employed by both functional and timing CPU models. For SSD’s computation complex, we model and integrate embedded CPU cores, DRAM modules/controller and system buses, which can capture the detailed latencies and throughput of the execution of flash firmware components based on ARMv8 ISA.” Torgerson (US 20070256053A1), discloses [0026], “… The storage 130 includes, in particular, code 131 for the operating system (OS) of the device, code 132 for applications running on the operation system including applications for the block diagram modeling environment, and data 133 for the models created in the block diagram modeling environment.” [0021], “… one or more models may be loaded in the block diagram modeling environment so that users can create or edit the model or models … The entities of the model or models may include subsystems and component blocks of the model or models.” [0028], “FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary application running on the electronic device 100 depicted in FIG. 1, which provides a block diagram modeling environment 200 for modeling dynamic systems.” [0029], “Simulink® provides tools for modeling and simulating a variety of dynamic systems in one integrated, graphical environment. Simulink® enables users to design a block diagram for a target system, simulate the system's behavior, analyze the performance of the system, and refine the design of the system.” [0032], “The editor 210 may display a partial or complete list of entities in the model or models loaded in the modeling environment so that the users can select one or more entities on the list (step 320). The list may contain the entities of the model or models such as: configurations, subsystems and component blocks and connections. The list displayed by the editor 210 will be described below in more detail with reference to FIGS. 6, 7 and 9. If the editor 210 displays the list of entities in the model or models loaded in the modeling environment, the users may select one or more entities on the list to edit the data of the selected entities. If the users select one or more entities on the list (step 330), the modeling environment dynamically generates a user interface for displaying and/or editing the data of the selected entities together (step 340).” [0033], “The modeling environment determines data of each of the selected entities based on the users' selection of the entities in the model or models (step 420). The modeling environment also determines whether the data associated with each of the selected entities is also associated with other selected entities.”); Hatch