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 .
Specification
The abstract dated 04/27/2022 has been reviewed. It has 150 words and 14 lines and no legal
phraseology. It is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the performing of a hybrid discretization” in line 1, should read as “the performing of the hybrid discretization”.
Claims 15 and 19 all include similar term, and they are all objected for the similar reason.
Claim 6 recites “… and that that lie in the same domain Dk …” in line 5, should read as “… and that lie in the same domain Dk …”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 recites "by moving points of a point cloud", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “a point cloud” refers to the “a point cloud” recited in line 6 of claim 1. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a point cloud” has an antecedent basis in line 6 of claim 1.
Claims 14 and 18 all include similar term, and they are all rejected for the similar reason.
Claim 2 recites " for each subset of points of a point cloud", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “a point cloud” refers to the “a point cloud” recited in the claim 1. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a point cloud” has an antecedent basis in the claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "non-zero on the face defined by the points", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “the points” refers to the “each subset of points” recited in line 4 of the claim 2 or points discloses in claim 1 or something else. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “the points” as “the subset of points”. Furthermore, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the face" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 19 all include similar terms, and they are all rejected for the similar reasons.
Claim 5 recites “a first object”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “a first object” refers to the “a first object” recited in the claim 2 or something else. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a first object” has an antecedent basis in the claim 2.
Claim 6 recites "Z(V)", which renders the claim indefinite because the term “V” is not explicitly defined in the claim or the specification. For the purpose of substantive examination, “V” is interpreted as vector space.
The remaining claims depend, directly or indirectly, from at least one of the claims identified above and are 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 1-13 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes.
Yes, Claims 14-17 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Yes, Claims 18-20 are directed to computer and fall within the statutory category of machine.
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 “performing a hybrid discretization of the model, comprising discretizing one or more first objects in the portion each with a mesh and one or more second objects in the portion each with a point cloud” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and analyzing a portion of real world, including one or more objects, mentally assigning points represent the one or more objects, then connecting points corresponding to one or more first objects, and leave unconnected points for one or more second objects (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).).
Claim 1: The limitations of “assessing a deformation as a result of the simulation run, the deformation corresponding to a shape deformation of the one or more second objects” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and analyzing a result, identifying a shape deformation of the one or more second object (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).).
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 “performing a deformation-based physics simulation described by a partial differential equation” and “performing a hybrid discretization of the model, comprising discretizing one or more first objects in the portion each with a mesh and one or more second objects in the portion each with a point cloud; - one or more iterations of: o performing a simulation run based on a discretization of the partial differential equation and on the hybrid discretization” 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 “performing a deformation-based physics simulation described by a partial differential equation” and “performing a hybrid discretization of the model, comprising discretizing one or more first objects in the portion each with a mesh and one or more second objects in the portion each with a point cloud; - one or more iterations of: o performing a simulation run based on a discretization of the partial differential equation and on the hybrid discretization” can be considered to represent mathematical concepts. In the specification: pages. 14-21, e.g., “simulate the partial differential equation”, “discretizes a weak formulation of the partial differential equation into a linear system of equations”, “The performing of the simulation run may comprise computing the Galerkin matrix (also referred to as the matrix of the Galerkin formulation, equation or discretization)” and all equations disclose the mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Claims 14 and 18 recite the similar elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons
under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 18 recites 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, 14 and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions …” and “A computer comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., receiving/collecting data) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Further, the claims recite the additional elements - “providing a geometrical model representing a portion of the real world;” and “one or more iterations of:” and “updating the hybrid discretization to model the deformation by moving points of a point cloud.” which are mere a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., retrieving a geometrical model, repeat simulation/calculations to updating data) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
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, 14 and 18 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, 14 and 18: 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,…
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. 14 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 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 2-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 14 and 18.
Claim 2 recites “the performing of a hybrid discretization comprises: - discretizing each object in the portion, each with a respective point cloud; - providing a basis of interpolating piecewise polynomial functions, where for each subset of points of a point cloud discretizing a first object or of a point cloud boundary, at least one function is constant, discontinuous and non-zero on the face defined by the points, each first object being thereby meshed.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (mental process). For example, a person is capable of observing and analyzing each part of the portion, visually represent an object as a set of point, identify a subset forming a boundary, and mentally verify whether a constant/discontinuous/nom-zero function could describe that face. Furthermore, the limitation specifies each object as a set of points (point cloud), define mathematical functions (piecewise polynomial) over subsets of those points, and applying mathematical conditions (constant, discontinuous, non-zero) on a defined face to determine meshing of a first object; therefore, the limitation can be considered to represent mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 recites “the functions are unstructured multivariate splines.”
This merely specifies the type of mathematical functions refers to claim 2 as unstructured multivariate splines; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept - The splines are mathematical constructs for approximating or interpolating values over multidimensional domains without a predefined mesh structure. Therefore, the claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 4 recites “points of each respective point cloud discretizing a second object are not repeated.”
This merely specifies a condition applied to the point cloud representation of the second object that each point in the point cloud is unique (i.e., no repeated point) refers to claims 2 and 3; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 recites “the splines have a same degree, the points of each respective point cloud discretizing a first object and the points belonging to each point cloud boundary being repeated with a multiplicity equal to said same degree plus one.”
This merely specifies a mathematical condition on the polynomial segments forming the piecewise spline function that all splines have the same degree (same highest power of the variable) and that the points of each respective point cloud discretizing a first object and points on each point cloud boundary are repeated with a multiplicity equal to that degree plus one; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 6 recites “the functions of the basis are functions of the type fjk, defined for each domain Dk, each degree p = 1, ...,pmax, and each set of indices l corresponding to at least one couple (I, B) in IBp by the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
31
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where the sum is over all the couple (I, B) in IBp sharing the same I and that that lie in the same domain Dk, where IB is a set of couples of indices (I, B) such that the parallelepipeds
PNG
media_image2.png
29
159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
form a subdivision of the polytope (V fail to disclosed)
PNG
media_image3.png
36
103
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where all the sums are intended as Minkowski sums, IBp being the set of such indices that have exactly p elements in the set I, where M is a spline function defined recursively by the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
63
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where X is a set of k+d+1 indices of point, Y being a subset of X of size d+1 such that all the points (ai)iЄY are affinely independent, where if no such Y exists, the spline is zero everywhere, where A={a1, ..., an} is the set of point cloud points, d is the dimension, {b, ..., bn} is the multiplicity of each point, {D1, ..., Dk} is a set of domains, each delimited by faces F ={fk1,...,fknk} defined with points in A, and pmax is a desired polynomial order. ”
This merely defines a basis of interpolating piecewise polynomial functions defined by mathematical formulas and operations (e.g., subdivision of the polytope, Minkowski sums, recursive spline functions); therefore, it merely recites the mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 7 recites “the performing of the simulation run comprises performing a Galerkin discretization method based on the basis of functions, the Galerkin discretization method optionally being a discontinuous Galerkin discretization method.”
This merely specifies the performing of the simulation run comprises applying Galerkin discretization method (well-known numerical technique) for solving partial differential equations based on a set of basis functions, and optionally using the discontinuous Galerkin variant; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 8 recites “the simulation is a simulation of a portion of the subsoil subject to hydrocarbon production and/or exploration and/or CO2 storage, the model being a geomodel, the model comprising a first part to remain in shape during the simulation and a second part to undergo a deformation during the simulation.”
This merely specifies simulation run for a portion of the subsoil; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., determine which part of the geomodel remains in shape and which part deforms can be performed) and mathematical concept (e.g., solving partial differential equations using finite element methods, finite difference/volume methods). Therefore, the claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 9 recites “the simulation is a flow simulation, the portion of the subsoil including a reservoir in which fluid flows, and an underburden and an overburden, the fluid flow causing deformation of the underburden and/or the overburden.”
This merely further defines the simulation is a flow simulation and the portion of the subsoil refer to claim 8; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10 recites “the simulation is a seismic simulation for hydrocarbon production and/or exploration and/or CO2 storage, the model representing a domain of the subsoil, the model including a distribution of velocities and densities on the domain, the distribution of velocities undergoing deformation during the simulation to match seismic measurements.”
This merely specifies the simulation run as a seismic simulation that applies mathematical models to represent the domain of the subsoil and perform adjustments to velocity and density distribution to match seismic measurements; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., solving partial differential equations using finite element methods, finite difference methods and acoustic wave equations). Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 recites “the simulation is a simulation of a mechanical part subject to a deformation caused by physical constraints, the model representing the mechanical part.”
This merely specifies simulation of a mechanical parts deformation based on physical constraints; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., solving partial differential equations using finite element methods, finite difference methods and linear elasticity equations). Therefore, the claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12 recites “the mechanical part includes a gasket subject to a deformation caused by physical constraints exerted by one or more other parts; the mechanical part includes a wind turbine or a mechanical part thereof, subject to vibrations or deformations caused by physical constraints exerted by a fluid; or the mechanical part includes a battery with electrodes and electrolytes, the battery being subject to interactions between the electrolytes and ions.”
This merely further specifies different type of mechanical parts refers to claim 11; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., solving partial differential equations using fluid structure interaction equations for turbine blades, stress analysis equations for gaskets, electrochemical equations for batteries). Therefore, the claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 recites “the simulation is a simulation of a domain of the real world comprising a sub-domain to undergo a deformation during the simulation and a sub-domain to remain in shape, the model representing the domain.”
This merely specifies geometry and behavior of the domain and constraints cause deformation in one of sub-domain while the other sub-domain remains unchanged; therefore, it merely a mathematical concept (e.g., solving partial differential equations using finite element analysis). Therefore, the claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 recite the similar elements as claims 2-4, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A novel
smoothed particle hydrodynamics and finite element coupling scheme for fluid-structure interaction: the sliding boundary particle approach” by Fuchs, published in May, 2021 in view of Wang US 20170109465 A1.
Claim 1, Fuchs teaches A computer-implemented method for performing a deformation-based physics simulation described by a partial differential equation (Abstract, “A novel numerical formulation for solving fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems is proposed where the fluid field is spatially discretized using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the structural field using the finite element method (FEM)… Moreover, this approach facilitates the handling of large deformations of the fluid domain respectively the fluid-structure interface without additional methodological and computational efforts.” Page.3, 2.1. Fluid field, “The fluid field is governed by the in stationary Navier-Stokes equations in the domain Ωf in convective form consisting of the mass continuity equation and the momentum equation …” page.3, 2.2. Structural field, “Considering the regime of finite deformations, the structural field is governed by the balance of linear momentum in the following local material form …” page.4, 3. Numerical methods and computational framework, “… The presented computational framework is implemented in the in-house parallel Multiphysics research code BACI (Bavarian Advanced Computational Initiative) [24].”) , the method comprising:
- providing a geometrical model representing a portion of the real world (Page.5, figure 2, Discretized domain Ω of a fluid-structure interaction problem with structural mesh and fluid particles (left) and separated sub-domains as seen by the fluid solver (SPH) and the structural solver (FEM) each with interface mesh for interaction handling …; page.2, 2. Governing equations, “… the domain Ω of a fluid-structure interaction problem consists of a non-overlapping fluid domain Ωf and a structural domain Ωs that share a common interface гfs …” page.19, 4.1.3. Laminar flow around a rigid cylinder, “… Consider a rigid cylinder of diameter D = 0.1 with center fixed at position (0.2, 0.2) in a rectangular channel of length L = 2.2 and height H = 0.41, as illustrated in Figure 11.”);
- performing a hybrid discretization of the model, comprising discretizing one or more first objects in the portion each with a mesh and one or more second objects in the portion each with a point cloud (Abstract, “… the fluid field is spatially discretized using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the structural field using the finite element method (FEM).” 3. Numerical methods and computational framework, “ … The discretization of the fluid field is based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics while the discretization of the structural field is based on the finite element method, as illustrated in Figure 2 (left).” Figure 2: Discretized domain Ω of a fluid-structure interaction problem with structural mesh and fluid particles (left) …; 3.1.1. Approximation of field quantities via smoothing kernel, “The fundamental concept of SPH is based on the approximation of a field quantity f via a smoothing operation and on the discretization of the domain Ω with discretization points, so-called particles.” Page.5, last paragraph, “In a next step, the computational domain is filled with discretization points or so-called particles j, each occupying a volume Vj.”);
- one or more iterations of:
o performing a simulation run based on a discretization of the partial differential equation and on the hybrid discretization (page.6, under Remark 3, “Applying the concept of SPH reduces the partial differential equations (1) and (2) to ordinary differential equations that are solved, i.e., evaluated and integrated in time, for all particles in the domain (cf. Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.7).” page.2, paragraph.2, “An iterative fixed-point coupling scheme [5] is employed to satisfy dynamic equilibrium at the fluid-structure interface with respect to a predefined convergence criterion.” page.9, paragraph 4, “Subsequently, the semi-discrete form is discretized in time applying a generalized-alpha time integration scheme.” Page.15, last paragraph, “Convergence of the iterative coupling loop in Algorithm 1 is achieved in case the following criterion based on the increment of interface displacements Δdfs n+1,i+1 is fulfilled…”);
o assessing a deformation as a result of the simulation run, the deformation corresponding to a shape deformation of the one or more second objects (Abstract, “… this approach facilitates the handling of large deformations of the fluid domain respectively the fluid-structure interface without additional methodological and computational efforts.” 4. Numerical examples, “… The obtained results are assessed on the basis of analytical solutions and reference solutions given in the literature.” See also Figures. e.g., 10, 20 and 22); and
o updating the hybrid discretization to model the deformation by moving points of a point cloud (page.6, under Remark 3, “ … The transient positions of particles are advected with the fluid velocity resembling the Lagrangian nature of the method.” 3.1.7. Time integration scheme, “… In a first kick-step the particle accelerations ain= (dui/dt)n determined in the previous time step n are used to compute intermediate particle velocities at n + 1/2 … where Δt is the time step size, before the particle positions at n + 1 are updated in a drift-step …” Examiner note: the adjustment of positions as changing the coordinates of the discrete points to represent shape changes, is interpreted as “moving points of a point cloud”).
However, Fuchs fails to teach a computer-implemented.
Wang teaches a computer-implemented (fig.7 and [0132]), see also abstract and [0080]-[0081]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs to incorporate the teachings of Wang and applying computer components in order to enabling the simulation to be carried out by a computer as automate the calculations, improve processing speed, reduce human error, and facilitate storage and manipulation of simulation data, enhancing efficiency and accuracy.
The elements of claims 14 and 18 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 14 and 18 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Further, the additional limitation “A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing a method for performing a deformation-based physics simulation described by a partial differential equation” and “A computer comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for performing a method for performing a deformation-based physics simulation described by a partial differential equation” (See Wang, fig.7 and [0132]).
Claim(s) 2-4, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs and Wang applied to claims 1, 14 and 18 above, and further in view of “Multivariate spline bases,
oriented matroids and zonotopal tilings” by Barucq (hereinafter, “Barucq (Multivariate)”), published in June 2020.
Claim 2, Fuchs further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the performing of a hybrid discretization comprises:
- discretizing each object in the portion, each with a respective point cloud (Abstract, “… the fluid field is spatially discretized using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the structural field using the finite element method (FEM).” Figure 2: Discretized domain Ω of a fluid-structure interaction problem with structural mesh and fluid particles (left) …; 3.1.1. Approximation of field quantities via smoothing kernel, “The fundamental concept of SPH is based on the approximation of a field quantity f via a smoothing operation and on the discretization of the domain Ω with discretization points, so-called particles.” Page.5, last paragraph, “In a next step, the computational domain is filled with discretization points or so-called particles j, each occupying a volume Vj.” Examiner note: Figure 2 shows discrete mesh nodes for the structural field, and the nodes correspond to the “points” as a point could that discrete coordinates used to model the object’s geometry).
- (3. Numerical methods and computational framework, “ … The discretization of the fluid field is based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics while the discretization of the structural field is based on the finite element method, as illustrated in Figure 2 (left).” Page.18, under fig.19, “In this example, the structural surfaces are described analytically by parameterization of the cylindrical surfaces in order to show the capabilities and flexibility of the proposed sliding boundary particle approach. However, it shall be noted that the geometry naturally could have been discretized by a finite element mesh.” See also figures.2, a POSITA would understand that discretizing an object or its boundary using a point could, it is conventional to connect the points via a mesh and to define a basis functions over the resulting faces. The function are selected to be constant, discontinuous, and non-zero over each face to ensure proper interpolation or integration in computation methods, particularly at the interfaces between structural and fluid domains).
However, Fuchs and Wang fail to teaches providing a basis of interpolating piecewise polynomial functions.
Barucq (Multivariate) teaches a basis of interpolating piecewise polynomial functions (2.2 Multivariate splines, “… Each function N is a piecewise polynomial function on (a1, an) with regularity Cp-1 at each value ai, called knot.” Page.7, first paragraph, “The functions M are multivariate piecewise polynomial functions with regularity Cp-1 if all the points are affinely independent, and reduced regularity otherwise.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Barucq and applying a basis of interpolating piecewise polynomial functions in order to provides a flexible and computationally efficient way to represent and manipulate complex geometric data like point clouds and meshes, offering a good balance between accuracy and computational cost. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improve continuity across element boundaries, allow local control of approximation and maintain stability in computations for complex geometries.
Claim 3, Fuchs and Wang fail to teach, but Barucq (Multivariate) teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the functions are unstructured multivariate splines (2.2 Multivariate splines, “… Unstructured spline functions were introduced by Curry and Schoenberg [15] as projection of simplices and later generalized by Carlson [16] through Dirichlet averages. The following useful recurrence formula was first derived by Micchelli [17]…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Barucq (Multivariate) and applying unstructured multivariate splines functions in order to address the structured splines when dealing with complex geometries and localized variations.
Claim 4, Fuchs further teaches The method of claim 3, wherein points of each respective point cloud discretizing a second object are not repeated (Fig.2, shows the fluid domain discretized into individual fluid particles in the SPH solver. Each particles has a distinct position within the point cloud, with no repetition of points).
The elements of claims 15-17 and 19-20 are substantially the same as those of claims 2-4. Therefore, the elements of claim 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2-4.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs and Wang and
Barucq (Multivariate) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of “A Refinement Algorithm for Generalized B-splines” by Henriksen, published in Dec 2015.
Claim 5, Fuchs further teaches, The method of claim 3, wherein (Fig.2 shows interface elements arranged along гfs , i.e., the boundary of the fluid point cloud, and the label explains that each solver uses an interface mesh to exchange dfs and ffs. Examiner note: Figure 2 shows discrete mesh nodes for the structural field, and the nodes correspond to the “points” as a point could that discrete coordinates used to model the object’s geometry)
However, Fuchs and Wang and Barucq (Multivariate) fail to teach the splines have a same degree and being repeated with a multiplicity equal to said same degree plus one.
Henriksen teaches the splines have a same degree and the splines have a same degree and being repeated with a multiplicity equal to said same degree plus one (page.3-4, see definition 2.1-2.7, “… Given a spline of degree p … In addition, if tm-p-1 … (that is, if the last p knots are repeated, and the last basis function is nonzero)…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang and Barucq to incorporate the teachings of Henriksen and applying splines have a same degree and being repeated with a multiplicity equal to said same degree plus one in order to allows for precise control over the spline's shape and continuity at specific points, enabling functionalities like interpolating control points and creating sharp corners or discontinuities.
Claim 6, Barucq (Multivariate) further teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the functions of the basis are functions of the type fjk, defined for each domain Dk, each degree p = 1, ...,pmax, and each set of indices l corresponding to at least one couple (I, B) in IBp by the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
31
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where the sum is over all the couple (I, B) in IBp sharing the same I and that that lie in the same domain Dk, where IB is a set of couples of indices (I, B) such that the parallelepipeds
PNG
media_image2.png
29
159
media_image2.png
Greyscale
form a subdivision of the polytope (V fail to disclosed)
PNG
media_image3.png
36
103
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where all the sums are intended as Minkowski sums, IBp being the set of such indices that have exactly p elements in the set I, where M is a spline function defined recursively by the formula
PNG
media_image4.png
63
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where X is a set of k+d+1 indices of point, Y being a subset of X of size d+1 such that all the points (ai)iЄY are affinely independent, where if no such Y exists, the spline is zero everywhere, where A={a1, ..., an} is the set of point cloud points, d is the dimension, {b, ..., bn} is the multiplicity of each point, {D1, ..., Dk} is a set of domains, each delimited by faces F ={fk1,...,fknk} defined with points in A, and pmax is a desired polynomial order (pages. 5-7, 2.1 Notation and conventions and 2.2 Multivariate splines and equations 2.1a, 2.1b, 2.2a, 2.2b and 2.3. Pages.11- 12, 2.4 Single-element liftings and zonotopal tilings and equation 2.8).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Barucq (Multivariate) and applying multivariate spline functions and associated bases in order to improve on some of these shortcomings by showing how these bases can be recast in a more general setting, allowing for repeated knots and in arbitrary dimension, paving the way for their use in efficient numerical schemes for the numerical resolution of PDEs in an unstructured setting. We base our formulation on a connection between simplex spline bases, oriented matroids and zonotopal tilings, whose combinatorial nature allows a unified treatment free of the degenerate configurations that are typical of a purely geometrical approach. Furthermore, these structures come equipped with a natural graph, the cocircuit graph, which can be used to navigate between splines in a basis and extend some aspects of the classical De Boor evaluation scheme. This removes, in our view, one important computational shortcoming that has prevented a more widespread use of these basis functions (introduction).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs and Wang and Barucq
(Multivariate) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “UNSTRUCTURED MULTI-PATCH DG-IGA FORMULATION FOR WAVE PROPAGATION” by Barucq (hereinafter, “Barucq (Unstructured)”), published in July 2020.
Claim 7, Fuchs and Wang and Barucq (Multivariate) fail to teach, but Barucq (Unstructured) teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the performing of the simulation run comprises performing a Galerkin discretization method based on the basis of functions, the Galerkin discretization method optionally being a discontinuous Galerkin discretization method (paragraph 1-3, “… Recent works highlighted the advantages of discontinuous Galerkin (DG) schemes … by formulating a DG scheme over disconnected IGA patches … that are coupled via DG fluxes …”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang and Barucq (Multivariate) to incorporate the teachings of Barucq (Unstructured) and applying discontinuous Galerkin (DG) schemes in order to achieve high-order approximations while relying on block-diagonal matrices, well-suited for parallelization. Engineering simulations, on the other hand, often involve homogeneous materials with complex, but known, geometries. Isogeometric analysis (IGA) [1], which replaces polynomial bases by B-spline (or NURBS) bases coming from CAD models, has been shown to have higher efficiency per degree of freedom, better convergence in high energy modes and an improved CFL condition for wave propagation.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs and Wang
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “An analytical solution for displacements due to reservoir compaction under arbitrary pressure changes” by Muñoz, published in July 2017.
Claim 8, Fuchs and Wang fail to teach, but Muñoz teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the simulation is a simulation of a portion of the subsoil subject to hydrocarbon production and/or exploration and/or CO2 storage, the model being a geomodel, the model comprising a first part to remain in shape during the simulation and a second part to undergo a deformation during the simulation (Abstract, “Production of fluids in reservoirs, such as oil, gas and water, leads to changes in the stress and strain fields, generating compaction in the reservoir and subsidence of the ground surface.” 1. Introduction, “Production of hydrocarbons in reservoirs leads to changes in the stress and strain fields that may generate swelling or compaction of the reservoir volume and, consequently, subsidence of the free surface.” Page.154, “Fig. 12 shows the vertical and horizontal components of the displacements along the reservoir top line and along the reservoir center line, both at the symmetry plane. It can be observed that the solution obtained with the proposed method agrees with the FEM results for both displacement components. The non-uniform distribution of the pressure changes inside the reservoir, leads to vertical expansion in the left section of the reservoir and vertical contraction in the right section … Fig. 13 presents the longitudinal and thickness strains inside the reservoir. Also, the contraction of the left half of the reservoir and the expansion of the right half can be verified. Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that both figures show portions of the profile exhibit zero or near-zero displacement that the curves intersect the horizontal axis indicating regions that experience negligible change in geometry during the simulation as a “first part” of the model that remains in shape, other portions of the profile show positive or negative displacement indicating zones of vertical expansion or contraction as a “second part “ of the model that undergoes deformation during the simulation.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchs and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Muñoz and applying simulating displacements due to non-uniform depletion in arbitrary shaped reservoirs in order to improve handling of different geometric feature and potentially reduce computation time, while still modeling the same displacement in arbitrary shaped reservoirs.
Claim 9, Fuchs and Wang fail to teach, but Muñoz teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the simulation is a flow simulation, the portion of the subsoil including a reservoir in which fluid flows, and an underburden and an overburden, the fluid flow causing deformation of the underburden and/or the overburden (Abstract, “Production of fluids in reservoirs, such as oil, gas and water, leads to changes in the stress and strain fields, generating compaction in the reservoir and subsidence of the ground surface.” 1. Introduction, “Production of hydrocarbons in reservoirs leads to changes in the stress and strain fields that may generate swelling or compaction of the reservoir volume and, consequently, subsidence of the free surface.” Fig. 12 shows the vertical and horizontal components of the displacements along the reservoir top line and along the reservoir center line, both at the symmetry plane. It can be observed that the solution obtained with the proposed method agrees with the FEM results for both displacement components. The non-uniform distribution of the pressure changes inside the reservoir, leads to vertical expansion in the left section of the reservoir and vertical contraction in the right section. This behavior can also be observed for the x -component of the displacements, where horizontal contraction occurs in the left half and expansion in the right half. For both displacement components, the maximum values are at the reservoir center. Page.152, Fig. 8 shows the radial and vertical displacements along radial lines located at the reservoir midplane and at the reservoir top, which were obtained with the thickness integration formulation, the proposed full integration solution, and with the FEM solution. It can be seen that the thickness integr