DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-19 have been presented for examination.
This action is non-Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicant’s arguments and amendments, the 112 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument 1: Applicant’s arguments directed to the 101 rejections are based on newly amended subject matter as Applicant argues the pending claims do not consist of mere mental processes or mathematical concepts but rather claims 1, 10, and 19 describes a concrete, processor-coordinated data-processing architecture that improves SPH simulations as performed by computers.
Examiner’s Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees as Applicant’s claim amendments can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Applicant’s arguments are directed to 101 rejection are based on “newly amended subject matter." All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument 2: Applicant’s arguments directed to the 101 rejections are based on newly amended subject matter as Applicant argues that the pending claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application that yields concrete performance gains on computers executing SPH simulations by reducing cross-processor lookup and communication overhead and streamlines neighbor discovery prior to flow-data computation.
Examiner’s Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees as Applicant’s claim amendments merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Applicant’s arguments are directed to 101 rejection are based on “newly amended subject matter." All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument 3: Applicant’s arguments directed to the 101 rejections and argues that the ordered combination per pending claims provide significantly more that any alleged abstract idea and that the combination can be directly mapped to the technical effects of the present disclosure by integrating references onto processors (first, second, and third) thereby producing integrated cell and integrated particle references spanning the partition boundary reducing total simulation time.
Examiner’s Response 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees as Applicant ‘s claim amendments can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. Applicant’s arguments are directed to 101 rejection are based on “newly amended subject matter." All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument 1: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter and indicate that YAMAMOTO does not teach distinct first and second processors each on different allocated spaces or a third processor that integrates per processor cell/particle reference information generated based by those distinct processors.
Examiner’s Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of YAMAMOTO in view of GUO because the combined prior art references teach Applicant’s amended claim 1 limitations. More specifically, the combination of YAMAMOTO and GUO teaches (first, second, third, etc.) that integrates processor cell/particle reference information based on those distinct processor. Applicant adds new claim limitations that suggest that YAMAMOTO does not anticipate or render obvious the specific third processor integration architecture required by the amended claim 1 and that GUO fails to disclose a central third processor that distributes particle data to two other processors. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Examiner used and continues to cite GUO as the prior art reference that teaches multiple processors that in combination with YAMAMOTO render Applicant’s claim limitations related to the third processor obvious. Additionally, All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument 2: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter and indicate that YAMAMOTO alone nor in view of GUO and/or SHAW teaches or suggest the claim-specific requirement that accumulation information is generated by referencing a cell with a preceding cell index among the cell indices (first and second).
Examiner’s Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees as applicant’s newly amended subject matter triggered a new search, which Examiner identified BOYER that teaches Applicant’s newly amended claim limitation of generated by referencing a cell with a preceding cell index among the cell indices (first and second). The BOYER reference teaches this and the other newly amended subject matter that Applicant included as part of this request for continued examination (RCE). Accordingly, the combined prior art references teach Applicant’s newly amended subject matter in the applicable claims where all arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1, 10, and 19 are 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 1, 3, 10, and 19 recite the limitation “generates a second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space” , “the second cell reference information including second inclusion information and second accumulation information, each of the second inclusion information and the second accumulation information being based on information on the partitioned second space, the second accumulation information generated by referencing a cell of the second plurality of cells that has a preceding cell index among the second cell indices, generating a second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space, the second accumulation information generated by referencing a cell of the second plurality of cells that has a preceding cell index among the second cell indices, generating a second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space, the second accumulation information generated by referencing a cell of the second plurality of cells that has a preceding cell index among the second cell indices” as recited in the amended claims. When looking the specification for these newly amended claim limitations, adequate support could not be found. Since support for the amended limitation could not be found, the amended limitation is different in scope than the disclosed invention at the time of filing, thus the amended limitation is new matter.
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.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis apparatus, which is a machine and is a statutory category invention. Claims 10-18 are directed to a fluid analysis simulation method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer medium, which is a manufacture and is statutory category invention. Therefore claims 1-19 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative based on Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
The additional limitation generates a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset on updating the first cell reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle as described on [page 3 | lines 20-25] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generates first cell reference information based on information on the first plurality of cells into which the first space is partitioned cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset on updating the first cell reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle as described on [page 3 | lines 7-9] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation the first cell reference information including first inclusion information and first accumulation information, each of the first inclusion information and the first accumulation information being based on information on the partitioned first space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset related inclusion information generated based on each cell index and the number of particles included a cell corresponding to each cell index as described on [page 3 | lines 5-10 and lines 20:25] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation the first accumulation information generated by referencing a cell of the first plurality of cells that has a preceding cell index among the first cell indices, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset related inclusion information generated based on each cell index and the number of particles included a cell corresponding to each cell index as described on [page 3 | lines 20:25 and page 4 | lines 1-3] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generates first particle reference information based on information on a particle included in the first space covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset on information on the plurality of cells as described on [page 3 | lines 9-10] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generates a second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging whether the space forming unit of the second processor may partition the second space into the plurality of cells as described [no cited specification paragraph available] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generates second cell reference information based on information on the second plurality of cells into which the second space is partitioned cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging whether the space forming unit of the second processor may partition the second space into the plurality of cells as described [page 5 | lines 16-17] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation the second cell reference information including second inclusion information and second accumulation information, each of the second inclusion information and the second accumulation information being based on information on the partitioned second space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and assessing accumulation and each of the inclusion information based on the partitioned space [no cited specification paragraph available]. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation the second accumulation information generated by referencing a cell of the second plurality of cells that has a preceding cell index among the second cell indices cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and assessing accumulation and each of the inclusion information based on the partitioned space [no cited specification paragraph available]. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generates second particle reference information based on information on a particle included in the second space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and assessing accumulation and each of the inclusion information based on the partitioned space [page 5 | lines 18-19]. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generate integrated cell reference information based on the first cell reference information and the second cell reference information cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and assessing accumulation and each of the inclusion information based on the partitioned space [page 4 | lines 6-8]. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generate integrated particle reference information based on the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and assessing accumulation and each of the inclusion information based on the partitioned space [page 4 | lines 9-10]. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation calculate flow data between the plurality of exchanged particles, and performs a fluid simulation based on the flow data cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or searching for neighboring particles that may be used to calculate flow data as described on [page 3 |lines 17-19], or in the alternative, mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 1 through 4 as described on [pages 27-28] of the specification.
Thus, the claim limitations recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a first processor”, and “a second processor,” “a third processor,” and “plurality of processors,” this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of “receive data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device and to provide the data regarding the plurality of particles to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation of “partitions a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation “partitions a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation search for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation “exchange the plurality of particles based on the first cell reference information, the first particle reference information, the second cell reference information, and the second particle reference information,” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation perform a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “a first processor”, and “a second processor,” “a third processor,” and “plurality of processors,” this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of “receive data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device and to provide the data regarding the plurality of particles to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation of “partitions a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation “partitions a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation search for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation “exchange the plurality of particles based on the first cell reference information, the first particle reference information, the second cell reference information, and the second particle reference information,” in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The additional limitation perform a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 1, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the claims as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 2 is directed to generate the first particle reference information based on location information of the plurality of particles and the first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space
The additional limitation generate the first inclusion information based on the cell indexes of the first plurality of cells and a number of particles included in a cell corresponding to each cell index of the first space, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generate the second particle reference information based on the location information of the plurality of particles and the second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a second processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generate the second inclusion information based on the cell indexes of the second plurality of cells and a number of particles included in a cell corresponding to each cell index of the second space, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a second processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , and “a second processor”, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , and “a second processor”, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 3 is directed to wherein first processor is further configured to generate the first accumulation information based on the number of particles included in the cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index of the first space, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claim 3 is also directed to wherein the second processor is further configured to generate the second accumulation information based on the number of particles included in the cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index of the second space, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a second processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , and “a second processor”, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , and “a second processor”, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).There are no limitations that need to be addressed under this step.
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 4 is directed to generate the integrated cell reference information by summing inclusion information of cells corresponding to the same cell index and summing accumulation information of cells corresponding to the same cell index, respectively, and, generate the integrated particle reference information by storing the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information in parallel, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a third processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “a third processor”, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of “a third processor”, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 5 is directed to wherein the third processor is further configured to derive a number of particles positioned in the first space and a number of particles positioned in the second space based on the integrated cell reference information, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a third processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “a third processor”, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of “allocate the first space to the first processor and allocate the second space to the second processor based on the number of particles positioned in the first space and the number of particles positioned in the second space,” in claim 5, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “a third processor”, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of “allocate the first space to the first processor and allocate the second space to the second processor based on the number of particles positioned in the first space and the number of particles positioned in the second space,” in claim 5, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 6 is directed to wherein the third processor is further configured to identify an exchange target particle based on the second cell reference information, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a third processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 6 recites the additional elements of “a third processor” , these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of extract information on the exchange target particle from the second particle reference information based on the second accumulation information of the second cell reference information, and instruct movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor based on the information on the exchange target particle, in claim 6, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 6 recites the additional elements of “a third processor” , these limitations do not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of extract information on the exchange target particle from the second particle reference information based on the second accumulation information of the second cell reference information, and instruct movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor based on the information on the exchange target particle, in claim 6, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1: There are no limitations that need to be addressed under this step.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of wherein first processor is further configured to receive data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor, in claim 7, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , these limitations does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of wherein first processor is further configured to receive data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor, in claim 7, can be viewed as merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or a mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 8 is directed to wherein the first processor is further configured to update the first particle reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle and update the first cell reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a third processor,” further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , these limitations do not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1: There are no limitations that need to be addressed under this step.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , “a third processor” , “graphics processing units (GPU)” , and “a central processing unit (CPU)” , these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , “a third processor” , “graphics processing units (GPU)” , and “a central processing unit (CPU)” , these limitations do not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 10 recites an abstract idea of a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation method, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first processor,” “a second processor,” and “a third processor” further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative based on “Mathematical Concepts” using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations as nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generating a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset on updating the first cell reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle as described on [page 3 | lines 20-25] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation generating first cell reference information based on information on the first plurality of cells into which the first space is partitioned cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset on updating the first cell reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle as described on [page 3 | lines 7-9] of the specification. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The additional limitation the first cell reference information including first inclusion information and first accumulation information, each of the first inclusion information and the first accumulation information being based on information on the partitioned first space cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset related inclusion information generated based on each cell index and the number of particles included a cell corresponding to each cell index as described on [page 3 | lines 5-10 and lines 20:25] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being perform