Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-15 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2022 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Interpretation
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.
4. 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:
input unit (claim 1),
a space formation unit (claim 1)
a particle search unit (claims 1, 2, 5-7)
a flow data calculation unit (claim 1)
a particle information generation unit (claim 2, 4)
a cell information generation unit (claim 2)
The above module does not have corresponding structure found in Specification.
Each of the above generic placeholder is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) third to last paragraph.
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.
For the purposes of claim limitations examination, the Examiner will be interpreting the hardware structure associated with the unit as mentioned above in view of fig 1 and 2.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
5. 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.
6. Claim 1-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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. Claims recite the limitations a. input unit (claim 1),
b. a space formation unit (claim 1)
c. a particle search unit (claims 1, 2, 5-7)
d. a flow data calculation unit (claim 1)
e. a particle information generation unit (claim 2, 4)
f. a cell information generation unit (claim 2)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in specification. According to MPEP § 2181(II)(B) "the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.” The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to the module for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 2-7 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
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.
7. Claim 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims recite the limitations
a. input unit (claim 1),
b. a space formation unit (claim 1)
c. a particle search unit (claims 1, 2, 5-7)
d. a flow data calculation unit (claim 1)
e. a particle information generation unit (claim 2, 4)
f. a cell information generation unit (claim 2)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in Specification. In particular, note that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” [MPEP 2181 II.B]. The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to all the different module for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and are indefinite.
Claim 2-7 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
8. 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer program stored in a medium” encompasses signals per se. The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the mediums to only non-transitory. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). Examiner suggest that claim 15 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium to overcome this rejection. Accordingly, Claim15 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
9. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-7 is directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 8-14 are directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer program stored in a medium, which is directed to signals per se. Even though this is not a statutory category of invention, in the interest of compact prosecution, the analysis of claim 15 will continue below. Therefore claims 1-14 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention and claim 15 is not directed to a statutory claimed invention.
Claim 1, 8 and 15 recites
Step 2A, Prong 1
A smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation method comprising: dividing, into a plurality of cells, the space in which the plurality of particles is present, and generating cell indexes based on the locations of the cells in the space where the plurality of particles are present; (A person can mentally visualize and divide a larger area into smaller, grid-like sections. Think of how a chess player visualizes the board or how someone creates a basic chart. A person can assign an index to each cell, like giving a name to each square on a grid (e.g., A1, B2) or numbering each section in a sequence. A person can observe the particles and determine which cell they fall into, similar to placing pins on a map or sorting items into labeled boxes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
a searching for at least one neighboring particle that neighbors a target particle, based on particle reference information about the plurality of particles and cell reference information about the plurality of cells; (A human could visualize a grid (the cells) and the location of objects (the particles) and then determine which objects are next to a specific target object. The particle and cell reference information are analogous to data points a person could manage in their mind or on paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.) and
calculating flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and performing a fluid simulation based on the flow data for the plurality of particles. (This falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 1 through 4 as described on [pages 24-26] of the specification.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving data about a plurality of particles for a fluid analysis simulation which are mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element of a smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus comprising: input unit, a space formation unit. a particle search unit and a flow data calculation unit in claim 1 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional element of a computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions of performing a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions in claim 15 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of receiving data about a plurality of particles for a fluid analysis simulation are recited at a high level of generality which are mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The additional element of a smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus comprising: input unit, a space formation unit. a particle search unit and a flow data calculation unit in claim 1 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional element of a computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions of performing a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions in claim 15 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 9 further recites generating the particle reference information based on location information of the plurality of particles and the cell indexes; and generating the cell reference information including the cell indexes and inclusion information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to each cell index. The claimed steps are a series of logical and mathematical operations. A person can perform these tasks mentally or with basic tools: Plot the particles on a grid (mental process). List which particles are in which cells (generating particle reference information). Count the particles in each cell (generating cell reference information). This is evidence that the process is a mental process and therefore an abstract idea. The additional element of a wherein the particle search unit includes a particle information generation unit and a cell information generation unit in claim 2 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claims 3 and 10 further recites wherein the cell reference information further includes accumulation information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index. The process of counting, ordering, and accumulating information based on a pre-defined index is a set of logical and computational steps. Without a specific, non-conventional technical implementation, this is considered a mental process. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 further recites sorts the particle reference information in ascending order based on the cell index. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of the particle information generation unit in claim 4 is considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claims 5 and 12 further recites searches for a neighboring cell based on a cell index corresponding to a cell in which the target particle is located, and searches for the neighboring particle based on the inclusion information and the accumulation information corresponding to the neighboring cell included in the cell reference information. The described method—of identifying a target cell index, finding corresponding neighboring cells, and then looking up included information for particles within those neighbors—is a series of logical steps. While likely performed by a computer in practice, the legal mental steps doctrine finds a process to be an unpatentable mental process if it can be performed in the human mind, possibly with the aid of pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of the particle search unit in claim 5 is considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claims 6 and 13 further recites wherein the particle search unit tracks a first memory location of the particle reference information corresponding to the neighboring particle based on the accumulation information corresponding to the neighboring cell. A human could perform this process by writing down a list of particles, cross-referencing it with a map of cells, and then looking up the location for each neighboring particle. The mental actions of observing, evaluating, and judging information are the core of this claim. A person could, in principle, perform the same steps with a pencil and paper, albeit much more slowly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of the particle information generation unit in claim 6 is considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claims 7 and 14 further recites wherein the particle search unit tracks a plurality of second memory locations of the particle reference information corresponding to the neighboring particle based on the inclusion information corresponding to the neighboring cell. A human could perform this process by writing down a list of particles, cross-referencing it with a map of cells, and then looking up the location for each neighboring particle. The mental actions of observing, evaluating, and judging information are the core of this claim. A person could, in principle, perform the same steps with a pencil and paper, albeit much more slowly. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of the particle information generation unit in claim 7 is considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (PUB NO: US 20170193251 A1) in view of SUWA (PUB NO: US 20170132048 A1)
Regarding claim 1
Yamamoto teaches a smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus (see fig 1 and fig 13 and para [0032]- FIG. 1 shows a particle simulation device 10 according to the present embodiment. The particle simulation device 10 is a device that simulates (analyzes) the behavior of a plurality of spherical particles in a workspace. Alternatively, fluids and individuals may be a target assuming that they are composed of a plurality of particles. see para [0101]-The effectiveness of the present invention for the entire particle simulation was evaluated as follows. Specifically, SPH simulation was conducted) comprising:
Regarding claim 8- Yamamoto teaches a smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation method (see fig 1 and para [0032]- FIG. 1 shows a particle simulation device 10 according to the present embodiment. The particle simulation device 10 is a device that simulates (analyzes) the behavior of a plurality of spherical particles in a workspace. Alternatively, fluids and individuals may be a target assuming that they are composed of a plurality of particles. see para [0101]-The effectiveness of the present invention for the entire particle simulation was evaluated as follows. Specifically, SPH simulation was conducted) comprising:
Regarding claim 15- A computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions of performing a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions (see fig 1 and fig 13 and para [0032]- FIG. 1 shows a particle simulation device 10 according to the present embodiment. The particle simulation device 10 is a device that simulates (analyzes) the behavior of a plurality of spherical particles in a workspace. Alternatively, fluids and individuals may be a target assuming that they are composed of a plurality of particles. see para [0101]-The effectiveness of the present invention for the entire particle simulation was evaluated as follows. Specifically, SPH simulation was conducted) comprising:
a space formation unit dividing, into a plurality of cells, the space in which the plurality of particles is present, (See para ([0013] “The workspace may be divided into a plurality of cells. See also para [0037] “In the present embodiment, the work area that is an area in which particles move is a three-dimensional space and is divided into cubic cells with a preset size on each side as shown in FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b). The particle simulation device 10 divides (partitions) the workspace into cells in advance before conducting the processing of simulation and grasps how the workspace is divided into cells in advance.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([Figure 2a] and [Figure 2b].)
PNG
media_image1.png
295
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Figure 2A Reference
and generating cell indexes based on the locations of the cells in the space where the plurality of particles are present; (See also para ([0037] “Each cell in the work area is given a cell number for specifying the cell. Cell numbers are assigned in order, for example, according to the positions of cells in the workspace.” See also ([FIG. 1]. See also para ([0042] “The particle number setting unit 13 is particle number setting means for setting a sortable particle number for each of a plurality of particles. The particle number setting unit 13 sets a sortable particle number for each of a plurality of particles based on the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12.” The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers of cells to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information. As particle numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set.)
a particle search unit searching for at least one neighboring particle that neighbors a target particle, based on particle reference information about the plurality of particles and cell reference information about the plurality of cells; (see para [0045-0046]- The pair setting unit 14 stores the largest value and the smallest value of particle numbers belonging to a cell into the memory of the particle simulation device 10 for each cell, based on the information input from the position information acquisition unit 12 and the particle number setting unit 13. The pair setting unit 14 sets particles belonging to the same cell or adjacent cells (for example, a total of 27 cells in the case of three-dimensional cells as in the present embodiment) as a pair of neighboring particles. The adjacent relation of cells is stored in advance in the pair setting unit 14. The pair setting unit 14 refers to the thus stored largest value and smallest value of particle numbers of particles belonging to a cell and, for each particle, determines a particle to be paired from among particles having particle numbers set greater than the particle number of the particle of interest. For each particle, the pair setting unit 14 determines a particle having a particle number set greater than that of the particle of interest, as a particle to be paired, from among the particles belonging to the cell that the particle of interest belongs to and particles belonging to cells adjacent to the cell. It is noted that since particle numbers are assigned in the order of cell numbers of the cells that particles belong to, it is unnecessary to refer to a cell that includes only particles having smaller particle numbers than the particle number of the particle of interest. It is therefore only necessary to search 14 adjacent cells that include a particle j where i>j, for a particle i. see para 99- In Step 2 and Step 3, the performance is improved. The performance improvement in Step 2 is achieved by reduction of the search range. The number of neighbor cells to be searched is 27 in the code pursuant to Non-Patent Literature 1, and 14 in the code pursuant to the present embodiment.)
Yamamoto does not teach an input unit receiving data about a plurality of particles for a fluid analysis simulation; and a flow data calculation unit calculating flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and performing a fluid simulation based on the flow data for the plurality of particles.
In the related field of invention, SUWA teaches an input unit receiving data about a plurality of particles for a fluid analysis simulation; (See para [0065-0066]-FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating an exemplary simulation performed by the parallel computer 801 in FIG. 8. The CPU 901 of the node 811-1 obtains and stores particle data input from the input device 812 or an apparatus external to the parallel computer 801 in the memory 902 (step 1001). The particle data represents, for example, the position and velocity of each of a plurality of particles that represent a continuous body, such as a fluid, an elastic body, and a structure within a calculation-target region. For example, a movable particle, i.e., a particle that involves a position change, that is a direct target of a numerical calculation may be obtained by modeling, for example, a fluid or an elastic body. Particle data of each movable particle may include physical values such as a center coordinate, a velocity, a radius of a region of influence, a density, a mass, a deformation gradient tensor, a material property, and a temperature. A plurality of types of moving particles with different traveling speeds may be present in the calculation-target region. See para [0119])
a flow data calculation unit calculating flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and performing a fluid simulation based on the flow data for the plurality of particles. (see para 31-32- In an embodiment, a calculation-target region in which particles are distributed may be a three-dimensional space, or may be a two-dimensional space. In a particle method, a particle motion is analyzed by calculating interactions from only neighbor particles present within a region of influence designated in advance for the particle. FIG. 1 depicts an example of such a region of influence. A region of influence 111 for a particle 101 is represented by a circle or sphere with radius h that is centered at the particle 101. A motion of the particle 101 is calculated according to interactions from a plurality of neighbor particles 102 within the region of influence 111. See para 37- FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary particle migration between partial regions. In parallel computing, a particle motion is calculated for each time step of a particle simulation. When a particle 401 present within the partial region 201 in a certain time step has migrated to the partial region 202 beyond the boundary 301 in a next time step, the node in charge of the partial region 201 sends information on the particle 401 to the node in charge of the partial region 202. This allows the node in charge of the partial region 202 to analyze motions of the particle 401. See para 84 and fig 10-Navier-Stokes equations may be used as the equation of motion of fluid particles.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for predicting SPH-based fluid analysis simulation as disclosed by Yamamoto to include an input unit receiving data about a plurality of particles for a fluid analysis simulation; and a flow data calculation unit calculating flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and performing a fluid simulation based on the flow data for the plurality of particles as taught by SUWA in the system of Yamamoto in order to determine a computation cost for each of a plurality of processing-target particles of each of the plurality of types. Subsequently, the parallel computer changes a position of a region boundary of the partial region according to the computation cost and the number of the processing-target particles of each of the plurality of types. (see abstract, SUWA) This improves the parallelization efficiency so that the amount of computer resources to be mounted on each node can be decreased. (Also see para [0081], SUWA)
Regarding claim 2 and 9
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the particle search unit includes a particle information generation unit generating the particle reference information based on location information of the plurality of particles and the cell indexes; and a cell information generation unit generating the cell reference information including the cell indexes and inclusion information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to each cell index. (see para ([0009] “reference information generation means for generating a matrix having the pair number set by the pair setting means and the particle numbers of particles of the pair as components of a row, sorting order of a column of the matrix based on the particle number of another particle of the pair, and generating reference information referring to the pair number of a pair including a particle by the particle number of the particle, based on the sorted matrix…from the interaction force calculated by the interaction force calculation means, based on the reference information generated by the reference information means.”) See also para ([0037] “Each cell in the work area is given a cell number for specifying the cell. Cell numbers are assigned in order, for example, according to the positions of cells in the workspace.”) See also ([FIG. 1]. See also para ([0042-0046] “The particle number setting unit 13 is particle number setting for setting a sortable particle number for each of a plurality of particles. The particle number setting unit 13 sets a sortable particle number for each of a plurality of particles, based on the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12.” The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers of cells to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information. As particle numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set. The pair setting unit 14 sets particles belonging to the same cell or adjacent cells (for example, a total of 27 cells in the case of three-dimensional cells as in the present embodiment) as a pair of neighboring particles. The adjacent relation of cells is stored in advance in the pair setting unit 14. The pair setting unit 14 refers to the thus stored largest value and smallest value of particle numbers of particles belonging to a cell and, for each particle, determines a particle to be paired from among particles having particle numbers set greater than the particle number of the particle of interest.)
Regarding claim 4 and 11
Yamamoto further teaches wherein the particle information generation unit sorts the particle reference information in ascending order based on the cell index. (see para [0042]- The particle number setting unit 13 is particle number setting means for setting a sortable particle number (particle index) for each of a plurality of particles. The particle number setting unit 13 sets a sortable particle number for each of a plurality of particles, based on the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12. The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers of cells to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information. As particle numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set. Through this setting of particle numbers, for example, as shown in FIG. 2(a), the particle numbers (in the example in FIG. 2(a), 1 to 10) ordered in accordance with the positions of particles are set for the particles. It is noted that the particle information is set such that the particle information stored in the particle information storage unit 11 can be acquired by a particle number)
11. Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (PUB NO: US 20170193251 A1) in view of SUWA (PUB NO: US 20170132048 A1) and further in view of NISHUIRA et al. (PUB NO: US 20120259602 A1)
Regarding claim 3 and 10
The combination of Yamamoto and SUWA does not teach wherein the cell reference information further includes accumulation information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index
In the related field of invention, NISHIURA teaches wherein the cell reference information further includes accumulation information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index. (see para [0064-0065] and fig 7- Upon receiving the information (neighboring-particle table 52 nei_pn[i][box_id], neighboring particle numbers n_jli[i] and n_jgi[i], and particle information) from the neighboring-particle-table preparing unit 15, the contact-candidate-list preparing unit 16 determines a prefixed sum s_jgi of n_jgi, as illustrated in FIG. 7, The prefixed sum s_jgi[i] is a one-dimensional sequence representing an integral value, which integrates, up to the particle number i, the particle numbers of particles not stored in the neighboring-particle table 52 of particle i, i.e., the number of particles n_jgi[i] (number of contact candidates) having a diameter smaller than that of the particle i among all particles existing in a predetermined search range around the particle i (a neighboring cell defined by Expression 9). In this embodiment, the prefixed sum s_jgi[i] is referred to as “integral contact-candidate number.” Specifically, the integral contact-candidate number s_jgi[i] is a value integrating the contact candidates n_jgi[i] in the order of particle numbers.)
PNG
media_image2.png
305
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for predicting SPH-based fluid analysis simulation as disclosed by Yamamoto to include wherein the cell reference information further includes accumulation information generated based on the number of particles included in a cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index as taught by NISHIURA in the system of Yamamoto and SUWA for simulating particles that are capable of reducing the amount of memory during DEM (discrete element method) calculation of particle having a particle diameter distribution by a shared-memory parallel computer. (see para [0015], NISHIURA)
Regarding claim 5 and 12
The combination of Yamamoto and SUWA does not teach wherein the particle search unit searches for a neighboring cell based on a cell index corresponding to a cell in which the target particle is located, and searches for the neighboring particle based on the inclusion information and the accumulation information corresponding to the neighboring cell included in the cell reference information.
In the related field of invention, NISHIURA teaches wherein the particle search unit searches for a neighboring cell based on a cell index corresponding to a cell in which the target particle is located, and searches for the neighboring particle based on the inclusion information and the accumulation information corresponding to the neighboring cell included in the cell reference information. (see para 64-66 and fig 7-Upon receiving the information (neighboring-particle table 52 nei_pn[i][box_id], neighboring particle numbers n_jli[i] and n_jgi[i], and particle information) from the neighboring-particle-table preparing unit 15, the contact-candidate-list preparing unit 16 determines a prefixed sum s_jgi of n_jgi, as illustrated in FIG. 7.The prefixed sum s_jgi[i] is a one-dimensional sequence representing an integral value, which integrates, up to the particle number i, the particle numbers of particles not stored in the neighboring-particle table 52 of particle i, i.e., the number of particles n_jgi[i] (numer of contact candidates) having a diameter smaller than that of the particle i among all particles existing in a predetermined search range around the particle i (a neighboring cell defined by Expression 9). In this embodiment, the prefixed sum s_jgi[i] is referred to as “integral contact-candidate number.” Specifically, the integral contact-candidate number s_jgi[i] is a value integrating the contact candidates n_jgi[i] in the order of particle numbers. The contact-candidate-list preparing unit 16 sequentially selects target par