Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 have been examined and rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-7, see pp. 6-8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, prong 1: The Applicant argues that while the claims involve mathematical equations, they are now expressly directed to a “computer graphics simulation apparatus,” see p. 6. Even with amendment of a “computer graphics simulation apparatus, the claims only recite certain limitations that perform calculations corresponding to math concepts besides certain limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated. There is not any limitation reciting performing simulating the interaction of arbitrarily-shaped magnets.
Step 2A, prong 2: The Applicant argues, see p. 7, that the amended limitation “converts a volume integral into an evaluation of closed-form surface integrals … to prevent divergence of the magnetic flux density during penetration” should provide a specific improvement to simulation technology by eliminating the divergence problem in computer graphics penetration. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations comprising mathematical equations or mathematical concepts to provide a method to solve a problem differently from previous methods to yield a solution to a mathematical problem. Hence, they are still considered abstract ideas and do not recite any limitations to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: The Applicant argues, see p. 7-8, that by the Examiner’s admission that the cited prior arts do not teach evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface … rather than by volume and by reduction of time complexity, the claims are patent eligibility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior arts do not teach evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface … rather than by volume in combination with other limitations. However, individual limitation of “evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface” is not new. Hence, the Applicant should distinguish what concepts are indicated allowable.
Claim 1-7 remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
The 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and recites:
A computer graphics simulation apparatus of magnetic materials comprising:
a processor; and
a memory connected to the processor,
wherein the memory stores program instructions executable by the processor to
receive information including geometries, poses, and magnetization intensities for a first magnetic material and a second magnetic material consisting of a plurality of polyhedrons and having uniform magnetization inside the polyhedrons, (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
calculate a magnetic vector potential and a magnetic flux density applied to an arbitrary point by the first magnetic material using the input information, and (math concepts)
calculate a magnetic force, a magnetic torque, and a mechanical torque received to the second magnetic material by the first magnetic material using the calculated magnetic vector potential and magnetic flux density, (math concepts)
wherein said geometries represent 3D polygonal meshes of the first and second magnetic materials, and (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the calculating of the magnetic vector potential and the magnetic flux density is performed by closed-form surface integrals over the plurality of polyhedrons, thereby obviating any discrete sampling of the magnetization, and (math concepts)
wherein the calculating of the magnetic force, the magnetic torque, and the mechanical torque received to the second magnetic material is performed by converting a volume integral into an evaluation of closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material to prevent divergence of the magnetic flux density during penetration between the first and second magnetic materials. (math concepts)
Step 2A, prong 1: limitations are grouped into abstract idea categories as indicated above.
Step 2A, prong 2: the claim does not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas.
Step 2B: the claim recites a limitation determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity as indicated above. The claim recites additional elements of a memory and a processor at generic level to perform functions, which do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claims 2-6 are apparatus claims depending on claim 1 and recites limitations comprising of formulae, which belong to math concept category. The claims do not recite any limitation to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas. The claims do not recite any additional elements.
Claim 7 is a method claim and recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1. It is, hence, rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, Thomaszewski, Graef in combination teach a simulation apparatus of magnetic materials, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory stores program instructions executable by the processor to:
receive information including geometries, poses, and magnetization intensities for a first magnetic material and a second magnetic material consisting of a plurality of polyhedrons and having uniform magnetization inside the polyhedrons;
calculate a magnetic vector potential and a magnetic flux density applied to an arbitrary point by the first magnetic material using the input information; and
calculate a magnetic force, a magnetic torque, and a mechanical torque received to the second magnetic material by the first magnetic material using the calculated magnetic vector potential and magnetic flux density,
wherein said geometries represent 3D polygonal meshes of the first and second magnetic materials, and
wherein the calculating of the magnetic vector potential and the magnetic flux density is performed by closed-form surface integrals over the plurality of polyhedrons, thereby obviating any discrete sampling of the magnetization,
However, Thomaszewski, Graef, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach:
wherein the calculating of the magnetic force, the magnetic torque, and the mechanical torque received to the second magnetic material is performed by converting a volume integral into an evaluation of closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material to prevent divergence of the magnetic flux density during penetration between the first and second magnetic materials;
in combination with other limitations as recited in the claim.
As per claims 2-6, Thomaszewski, Graef, and other cited prior arts either alone or in combination do not teach respective limitations comprising equations as recited in claims 3-6, respectively.
Claim 7 recites limitations analogous to those in claim 1 including the limitation determined to be allowable. Claim 7, hence, would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong Van Luu whose telephone number is 571-272-8572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:30 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights