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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
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 12/24/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-7, see pp. 7-12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, prong 1: The Applicant argues that while the claims recite equations or mathematical concepts, the claims are specifically applied within a structured simulation apparatus performing a series of steps to achieve a technological outcome, see p. 8 ¶ 2-5. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. 9 ¶ 1 – p. 11 ¶ 4, that the claim invention perform simulation to avoid the need for granular volume sampling and eliminate divergence issue, which is a concrete application of mathematics to achieve a new and useful result and which requires a processor and memory to execute specific computational steps to simulate. As pointed out above, the claims only recite calculations according to mathematical equations or concepts but do not recite limitations to perform simulation.
The Applicant also argues that claim 1 expressly recites a simulation apparatus including a processor and memory to perform novel simulation tying the method to a particular computing device configured in a specific way as opposed to a generic use of a computer, see p. 10 ¶ 3-5. Hence, the claim provides a technical solution to a technical problem in simulation technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor and memory are generically recited to perform math concepts or equations limitations. There is not anything special about the processor and memory that makes them specific to the recited claims.
The Applicant, furthermore, argues that additional elements in the claims including the data inputs and the structured steps of computing field values cooperate to impose meaningful limits on the use of any underlying equations, see p. 10 last paragraph – p. 11 ¶ 4. Hence, the additional elements amount significantly more to abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the immediately above paragraph, the additional elements including the processor and memory are generically recited to perform math concepts or equations limitations without anything special about the processor and memory that makes them specific to the recited claims. Hence, the additional elements do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
In conclusion, the claims do not recite any limitations to integrate a practical application into abstract ideas in contrast to the Applicant’s statement on p. 11 ¶ 3-4.
Step 2B: The Applicant argues, see p. 11 ¶ 5 – p. 12, that the additional elements amount significantly more to abstract ideas. As discussed above the additional elements do not amount significantly more to abstract ideas.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 7 remain rejected under 35 USC 101. Claims 2-6 also remain rejected under 35 USC 101 as analyzed below in the 35 USC 101 rejections section.
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 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 evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material rather than by volume integration. (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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite “evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material” in the last limitation. This subject matter is not described in the specification.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1, so they are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
The phrase “evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material rather than by volume integration” recited in claims 1 and 7 renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what role the “volume integration” plays in this limitation. Does the Applicant mean conversion from volume integration to closed-form surface integrals over a surface? To examine the claims, “rather than volume integration” is not given weight in the claims.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1, so they are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 evaluating closed-form surface integrals over a surface of the second magnetic material rather than by volume integration;
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
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