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Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.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 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 generating 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 generating 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 generating 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 generating 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 “receiving a third processor of the SPH-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device, the data regarding the plurality of particles provided from the third processor to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 10, 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 “partitioning a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 10, 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 “partitioning a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 10, 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 searching for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 10, 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 “exchanging 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 10, 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 performing a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 10, 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 “receiving a third processor of the SPH-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device, the data regarding the plurality of particles provided from the third processor to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 10, 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 “partitioning a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 10, 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 “partitioning a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 10, 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 searching for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 10, 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 “exchanging 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 10, 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 performing a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 10, 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 11
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 11 is directed to generating, by the first processor, 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 and generating, by the first processor, the first inclusion information generated based on the cell indexes of the first plurality of cells and a number of particles included in a 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,” and “a second processor” further narrow 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. 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 of generating, by the second processor, 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; and generating, by the second processor, 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. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
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
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “a second 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 11 recites the additional elements of “a second 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 12
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 12 is directed to wherein the first accumulation information is generated based on the number of particles included in the cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
The additional limitation of wherein the second accumulation information is generated based on the number of particles included in the cell corresponding to a cell index before each cell index of the second space, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no limitations that need to be addressed under this step.
Step 2B: 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 13
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 13 is directed to wherein integrated cell reference information is generated 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, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes,” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of “fluid analysis simulation apparatus” and “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 wherein the integrated particle reference information is generated by storing the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information in parallel 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 13 recites the additional elements of “fluid analysis simulation apparatus” and “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 wherein the integrated particle reference information is generated by storing the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information in parallel 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 14
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 14 is directed to deriving, by the third processor, 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 further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , and “a third processor” , 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, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of allocating, by the third processor, the first space to the first processor and allocating 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 14, 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 14 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , and “a third processor” , 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, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of allocating, by the third processor, the first space to the first processor and allocating 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 14, 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. (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 15
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 15 is directed to identifying, by the third processor, an exchange target particle based on the second cell reference information, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites the additional element of “a first processor” and “a third processor” , 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, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of extracting, by the third processor, information on the exchange target particle from the second particle reference information based on accumulation information of the second cell reference information and instructing, by the third processor, movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor based on the information on the exchange target particle, in claim 15, 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 15 recites the additional element of “a first processor” and “a third processor” , this limitation does 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 extracting, by the third processor, information on the exchange target particle from the second particle reference information based on accumulation information of the second cell reference information and instructing, by the third processor, movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor based on the information on the exchange target particle, in claim 15, 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 16
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 16 recites the additional element of “a first processor” and “a second processor” , 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, these additional elements merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation of receiving, by the first processor, data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor, in claim 16, 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 16 recites the additional element of “a first processor” and “a second processor” , this limitation does 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 receiving, by the first processor, data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor, in claim 16, 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 17
Step 2A, Prong 1: Dependent claim 17 is directed to updating, by the first processor, the first particle reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle and updating, by the first processor, the first cell reference information based on
the information on the exchange target particle, which further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which are directed to “Mental Processes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , 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, 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 17 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , this limitation does 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 18
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 18 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , “a third processor” , “graphics processing units (GPU)” , and “central processing unit (CPU)” , 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, 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 18 recites the additional element of “a first processor” , “a second processor” , “a third processor” , “graphics processing units (GPU)” , and “central processing unit (CPU)” , this limitation does 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 19
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 19 recites an abstract idea of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program using a plurality of processors 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 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 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 generating 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 generating 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 generating 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 generating 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 “divide an analysis space into a first space and a second space, allocate the first space to the first processor, and allocate the second space to the second processor” in claim 19, 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 “receiving a third processor of the SPH-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device, the data regarding the plurality of particles provided from the third processor to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 19, 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 “partitioning a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 19, 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 “partitioning a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 19, 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 searching for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 19, 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 “exchanging 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 19, 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 performing a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 19, 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 “divide an analysis space into a first space and a second space, allocate the first space to the first processor, and allocate the second space to the second processor” in claim 19, 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 “receiving a third processor of the SPH-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation from an external device, the data regarding the plurality of particles provided from the third processor to each of the first processor and the second processor” in claim 19, 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 “partitioning a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells” in claim 19, 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 “partitioning a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells” in claim 19, 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 searching for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist in claim 19, 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 “exchanging 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 19, 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 performing a fluid simulation based on the flow in claim 19, 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.
As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are ineligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO, (US 20170193251 A1) in view of GUO (Efficient Massive Parallelisation for Incompressible Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics with 108 Particles), herein GUO, and in further view of BOYER (Cartilage Simulation using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics), herein BOYER.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected because YAMAMOTO teaches a first processor; a second processor, wherein the first processor partitions a first space allocated to the first processor into a first plurality of cells YAMAMOTO ([0004] “Parallel-vector algorithms for particle simulations on shared-memory multiprocessors (first, second, third processors).”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0013] “The workspace (first space) may be divided into a plurality of cells (first plurality of cells). See also YAMAMOTO [0037] “In the present embodiment, the work area that is an area in which particles move is a three-dimensional space and is divided (partitioned) into cubic cells (first plurality of 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 (first plurality of cells) in advance before conducting the processing of simulation and grasps how the workspace (first space) is divided (partitioned) into cells (first plurality of 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
YAMAMOTO also teaches generates first cell reference information based on information on the first plurality of cells into which the first space is partitioned YAMAMOTO ([ABSTRACT] “a reference information generation unit that generates a matrix from the pair numbers and the particle numbers, and generates reference information (cell reference information) for referencing the pair numbers from the particle numbers on the basis of a matrix (first plurality of cells) in which the order of the rows of the matrix are sorted on the basis of the particle numbers (first space is partitioned).”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0013] “The position information acquisition means may acquire information (cell reference information) indicating a cell in which a particle is positioned (first space is partitioned), for each of a plurality of particles, as position information. This configuration enables efficient and easy selection of a pair of neighboring particles and can further improve the computation efficiency.”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches 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 YAMAMOTO ([0003] “A particle simulation embodies the movement of the entire particle group (first cell reference information) by storing the positions and velocities (inclusion information) of individual particles as variables (first accumulation information) and tracking their changes (information on the partitioned first space) based on a model.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0009] “In order to achieve the above-noted object, a particle simulation device according to an embodiment of the present invention is configured to calculate position and velocity (inclusion information) of a plurality of particles in a workspace based on interaction force with another particle and simulate behavior of the particles. The particle simulation device includes: position information acquisition means for acquiring position information indicating a particle position, for each of the plurality of particles; particle number setting means for setting a sortable particle number for each of the plurality of particles.”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches generates first particle reference information based on information on a particle included in the first space YAMAMOTO ([0069] “In the particle simulation device 10, the position information acquisition unit 12 acquires the particle information at present time of each particle that is stored in the particle information storage unit 11 (SO1, position information (space) acquisition step). The cell number (first particle reference information) of the cell that includes the coordinates of a particle (information on a particle) indicated by the particle information is set as position information (first space) of the particle. Subsequently, the position information acquisition unit 12 determines whether the setting (updating) (or generation of particle reference information) of a pair is necessary (S02). In the processing at the initial time, this determination is not made and the setting of a pair is always performed. See also YAMAMOTO ([0012] “The particle number setting means may set a sortable particle number for each of the plurality of particles based on the position information (first space particle information) acquired by the position information acquisition means. With this configuration, particle numbers (first particle reference information) can be assigned to particles appropriately and reliably. This enables an embodiment of the present invention to be carried out appropriately and reliably.”)
YAMAMOTO does not explicitly teach partitions a second space allocated to the second processor into a second plurality of cells, generates second cell reference information based on information on the second plurality of cells into which the second space is partitioned, 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, generates second particle reference information based on information on a particle included in the second space, search for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist, 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 or calculate flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and the plurality of processors perform a fluid simulation based on the flow data.
However, GUO teaches the partitions a second space allocated to the second processor into the plurality of cells GUO (Section III Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] “The Zoltan HSFC partitioning algorithm seeks to divide (partition) the interval [0, 1] into P intervals (P partitions) each containing the same weight of cells associated to these intervals by their inverse Hilbert coordinates. N bins are created (where N > P) to partition [0, 1]. The weights in each bin are summed across all processors (first, second, third, etc.). The algorithm sums the bins from left to right until the desired weight for current part interval is achieved. This results in new partition (second space) of P intervals. This process is repeated as needed to improve partitioning tolerance.” See also GUO ([Equation 11] where the Zoltan Inverse Hilbert Space Filling Curve (HSFC) (processors) assigns (partitions) a weight for each cell (a second plurality of cells) defined based on the number of particles in each cell “i” (which is for the second and subsequent spaces) in the numerator over the total number of particles in the denominator.”) See also GUO ([Algorithm 1].)
GUO also teaches generates second cell reference information based on information on the second plurality of cells into which the second space is partitioned GUO ([Section IV Boundary Conditions] “In the serial ISPH version, mirror particles (partitioned second spaces) are generated with the following procedure: 1) insert all the particles into cells (second plurality of cells) according to original domain size (second cell particle information), 2) identify which particles have mirror particles (partitioned second spaces) and generate their mirror particles (partitioned second space), 3) regenerate the mirror cells (second partitioned spaces) according to the enlarged domain size (second cell particle information), and 4) reinsert the entire particles including mirror particles into cells (second plurality of cells).”) See also GUO ([Algorithm 4 ISPH Mirror Particles Generation] , [FIG 1a] , and [FIG 1b].”)
GUO also teaches 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 GUO ([Section III. Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] “Constructing neighbor lists (second accumulation information) and solving the pressure Poisson equation (second inclusion information) are two critical points in terms of the high performance of the Incompressible SPH codes. The parallel efficiency of the SPH software applications requires effectively minimizing communications between processors and good load
balancing. With these motivations, the ISPH code utilizes an alternative partitioning (second cell reference information) and dynamic load balancing approach by using Hilbert Space Filling Curve (HSFC) from Zotlan [10] to decompose the cells (partitioned second space) with number of particles in each cell as the cells’ weight functions.”) See also GUO ([Equation 5], [Equation 9], and [Equation 11].)
PNG
media_image2.png
95
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GUO Equation 11 Reference
GUO also teaches generates second particle reference information based on information on a particle included in the second space GUO ([Section A. Mirror Particles] “In the serial ISPH version mirror particles are generated with the following procedures:1) identify which particles have mirror particles and generate their mirror particles, 2) regenerate the mirror cells (plurality of cells and second space) according to the enlarged domain size (second cell particle information), and 3) reinsert the entire particles including mirror particles into cells.”) See also GUO ([Algorithm 4 ISPH Mirror Particles Generation] , [FIG 1a] , and [FIG 1b].
GUO also teaches search for at least one neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle in a space in which the plurality of particles exist GUO ([Section III Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] “The parallel efficiency of the SPH software applications requires effectively minimizing communications between processors (first and second processors) and good load balancing…Mapping routines (search) provide the functionality of sending particles and their physical field data blocks (neighboring particle adjacent to a target particle) to an appropriate partition (space in which plurality of particles exist). With this mechanism, the particles can be distributed evenly to MPI partitions (spaces), and in the meantime, without losing spatial locality which is critical for neighbor list searching.”)
GUO also teaches 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 GUO ([Algorithm 1] where the load balancing algorithm are generated from the multiprocessors to read particle data (first and second particle reference information) and exchange the plurality of particles by calculating the domain size and the number of particles (first and second cell reference information) in each cell to include partition changes, decomposition cells, and parameter changes indicating whether there is a partition change.”)
GUO also teaches calculate flow data between the target particle and the at least one neighboring particle, and the plurality of processors perform a fluid simulation based on the flow data GUO ([Section III | A. Halo Exchange] “In the ISPH code, there are two major steps involving halo exchange, the first step is the projection step, the pressure and velocity fields are calculated (calculate flow data) and the particles’ positions (target particle and neighboring particle) are advanced, the halo exchange are required before the pressure solver and a one-time pressure halo update (plurality of processors perform a fluid simulation based on flow data) after the pressure solver.”) See also GUO ([Conclusion] “From the above results, we can see that domain decomposition with space filling curve can efficiently deal with irregular distributed particles. The method can are perfectly match the nature of non-uniform spatial distribution of SPH particles (target particle and at least one neighboring particle) during simulations (fluid simulations), which also offers capability of developing parallel adaptive SPH within an ISPH toolkit.” See also GUO ([Fig. 2(a)] and [Fig. 2(b)] where the speedup and efficiency flow data simulations are calculated (calculate flow data to perform fluid simulations) based on the number of core processors (plurality of processors) showing the ISPH code via fluid simulating and achieving an efficiency of nearly 81.3% to improving memory space, reducing memory footprint, and optimizing searching and kernel (flow data) calculations.”) See also GUO ([Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] and [Algorithm 3] “In the ISPH code, there are two major steps involving halo exchange, the first step is the projection step, the pressure and velocity fields (flow data) are calculated and the particles’ positions (plurality of exchanged particles) are advanced, the halo exchange are required before the pressure solver and a one-time pressure halo update after the pressure solver (performs a fluid simulation based on the flow data). At the second step, the particles (plurality of exchanged particles) are then shifted slightly and the hydrodynamic variables are corrected by a Taylor series in order to stabilise the simulations (simulation performed based on exchange of flow data), this requires one halo exchange before the second step start since the entire particles’ positions are changed during the projection step. Due to a time step restriction (the CFL condition where a particle must not move more than fraction of its smooth length in one time step) each particle does not exhibit large spatial shifts and therefore the majority of particles tend to remain in the same cell. This ensures no requirement of re-partition during each time step, but halo exchange must be performed three times in each time step (calculate flow data multiple times for the plurality of exchange particles.”) See also GUO ([Part III Algorithm 1] and [Part III Algorithm 2].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by calculating flow data between the plurality of exchanged particles, and performing a fluid simulation based on the flow data. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]).
The combination of YAMAMOTO and GUO does not explicitly teach 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, 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, generates a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space, generates 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, generate integrated cell reference information based on the first cell reference information and the second cell reference information or generate integrated particle reference information based on the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information.
However, BOYER teaches 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 BOYER ([Section 3.2.2 Cell Indexing] “The cell indexing method presented above would at first investigation appear to be inferior to the previous octree method in total memory consumption, since unlike the octree approach, grid cells are created in areas where no particles are present, and in the case of a simulation where particles (plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation) are confined to a small portion of the usable space this would infer a waste of resources in comparison. If the simulation was intended to be run in serial on the CPU (first processor), an octree method would likely be superior in its capacity to reduce consumption of memory resources (external devices). However, the octree method presented above requires such a complex system of calculations with multiple send and receive processes of data (receive data regarding a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation) to the GPU (second processor) and with many additional variable arrays to accompany those procedures that the cell indexing method requires far less resources and operates (provide the data regarding the plurality of particles) at a significantly greater computational speed.”)
BOYER also teaches 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 BOYER ([Section 3.2 Neighbour Search Algorithms] “An octree algorithm provides a means of reducing the size of the searched area by breaking down the volume space into ever decreasing levels depending on the number of particles found in neighbouring cells (referencing a cell of the first plurality of cells) in a hierarchical manner. Alternatively, a grid-based approach such as the cell-indexing method outlined below uses a predefined number of cells (preceding cell index among the first cell indices) in a grid and performs a simple search of all neighbouring cells for neighbour particles (first accumulation information generated). Both of these algorithms as they were implemented in the SPH formulation are provided as follows.”)
BOYER also teaches generates a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space BOYER ([Section 3.2.2 Cell Indexing] “The second method of performing a neighbour search (generates a first cell index) explored for use in the simulation is a simplified cell indexing approach based on the work by Onkerik and Durikovic [116]. This method was implemented by a summer undergraduate student by the name of Sean LeBlanc under the supervision of the author. Using Axis-Aligned Bounding Boxes (AABB), the total volume space is subdivided into a three-dimensional grid of cells (generates a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells) by the host, and the first particle in each grid cell is assigned to that cell (the first space) with the remainder of the particles in that cell associated via a linked list. The particles are sent to a CUDA kernel where they are assigned individual threads and their 27 nearest AABBs are determined based on their current positions, which are the cells surrounding the current grid cell in three-dimensional space (Figure 3.5).”)
BOYER also teaches generates a second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space BOYER ([Section 3.2.1.2 Tree Creation] “All that remains in the process of tree creation is the act of linking each cell within the tree, or in other words, assigning child and parent cells to each cell where appropriate (Figure 3.2). This is accomplished through a pair of CUDA kernels. The first kernel determines what the mask would be for the current cell if it were a level below, and checks this against all cells in the level below it. The current cell is assigned as the parent to those cells which match this mask. It also extracts the Cartesian position information from the mask associated with that cell, which will be needed later during the neighbour search algorithm. The second kernel simply performs a loop through all cells and checks if the current cell is the parent while counting the total number of child cells. Because the cells were previously sorted, only the index of the first cell needs to be stored.”)
BOYER also teaches 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 BOYER ([Figure 3.2] [Section 3.2.1 Parallel Octree Neighbour Search] “Traditionally, the tree is created by sequentially adding each particle to the tree (the second accumulation information generated), and when the number of particles in a cell exceeds a certain value, that cell is subdivided and a new cell hierarchy is created at a lower level (referencing a cell of the second plurality of cells) with the previous cell (preceding cell index among the second cell indices) as a parent (Figure 3.2). Unfortunately, this does not work when extended to a parallel framework because the cell that each particle is assigned to is determined by the results from previous particles. To overcome this problem, a parallel octree method similar to that defined by Bédorf et al. [114] was implemented, the particulars of which for the current implementation for particle sorting, the tree creation and the tree traverse are given below.”) See also BOYER ([Figure 3] “Figure 3.2 Example of hierarchical breakdown of nodes from the root in a 1-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional octree. As levels increase, each of the preceding level’s cells are subdivided into eight more cells, unless a cell does not contain any particles (black) or contains less than a critical number (green). Lower levels cells are the children (second plurality of cells) of the parent cells (preceding cell index among the second cell indices) they are formed from.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
463
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BOYER Figure 3 Reference
BOYER also teaches generate integrated cell reference information based on the first cell reference information and the second cell reference information BOYER ([Chapter 3 Methodology] “The method of SPH is founded upon the integral interpolant as given by Monaghan [59] in its generalized form as:
PNG
media_image4.png
34
212
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where is the function of the spatial coordinates (generate integrated cell reference information), is the smoothing kernel, and is a differential volume element. The solution of this interpolant through the use of integration methods achieves the desired result of treatment of the material properties (as a continuum in a Lagrangian-based evaluation, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The generalized form of the integral interpolant allows for a range of possible simulation properties and methods (based on the first cell reference information and the second cell reference information) with the use of varying basis functions and smoothing kernels. In the current chapter, the proposed formulation of cartilage simulation using SPH is provided. Integration methods tested in the design of the simulation are outlined. Two neighbour search algorithms – a parallel octree approach and a grid-based cell-indexing method - are fully defined as they were implemented during the evolution of the program framework.”)
BOYER also teaches generate integrated particle reference information based on the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information BOYER ([Section 3.1 Integration Methods] “To determine the properties of the SPH particles (integrated particle reference information) as they evolve through time, each loop of a simulation must represent a fraction of that time during which the representations of the associated physical quantities (first particle reference information) must be updated according to predefined parameters (second particle reference information). Practically, the solution of the integral equations during each of these so-called time steps produce approximations to the integral interpolant (generate integrated particle reference information). Appropriate selection of algorithms for the evaluation of particle parameters as they are updated is therefore a non-trivial consideration as it has a direct impact on not only the accuracy of the solution during each time step, but also for the stability of the simulation as a whole. These integration methods for the solution of the SPH integral interpolant may be divided into two broad categories: explicit, where the solution of each time step is approximated to a future point in time based on the current conditions, and implicit, where the current values are generated in an iterative manner to converge on a solution that deviates to minimization between iterations..”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of BOYER with YAMAMOTO and GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. BOYER would modify YAMAMOTO and GUO wherein generating a first cell index for each of the first plurality of cells of the first space. The benefits of doing so minimizes the creation of additional fluid particles and saves greatly on computational resources. (BOYER [Section 3.6.4 Fluid Mass Change With Cartilage Exterior]). Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA, GUO, and BOYER teach the limitations in Claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected because YAMAMOTO further teaches wherein the first processor is configured 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 YAMAMOTO ([0009] “reference information generation means for generating a matrix having the pair number (based on location information) set by the pair setting means and the particle numbers of particles (plurality 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 (for each of the first plurality of cells), and generating reference information (first particle reference information) for 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 YAMAMOTO ([0037] “Each cell in the work area is given a cell number for specifying the cell. Cell numbers (a first cell index) are assigned in order, for example, according to the positions (first space) of cells in the workspace.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([FIG. 1]. See also YAMAMOTO ([0042] “The particle number setting unit 13 is particle number setting means (particle information generation unit) for setting (generating) a sortable particle number (first particle reference information) 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 (location information) acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12.”)
YAMAMOTO further teaches 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 YAMAMOTO ([0042] “The particle number setting unit 13 (cell information generation unit) arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers of cells to which the particles belong) (first cell reference) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information (first cell reference information). As particle numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set.” See also YAMAMOTO ([0043] “The pair setting unit 14 is pair setting means for selecting (generating) a pair of particles (and a number of particles included in a cell) neighboring (first inclusion information) to each other based on the position information (corresponding to each cell index of the first space) acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12, and setting a pair number (pair index) for the selected pair based on the particle number of one of particles of the selected pair that is set by the particle number setting unit 13. The particles neighboring to each other refer to two particles that may possibly be in contact with each other.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([FIG. 1] , [FIG. 3(a)-(d)] and [FIG. 6].)
YAMAMOTO also teaches wherein the second processor is configured to 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 YAMAMOTO ([0042] “The particle number setting unit 13 (second processor) is particle number setting means for setting (configured to generate) a sortable particle number (particle index) (the second particle reference information) for each of a plurality of particles. The particle number setting unit 13 sets a sortable particle number (the second cell index for each of the second plurality of cells of the second space) for each of a plurality of particles, based on the position information (based on the location information of the plurality of particles) acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12 . The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (the second cell index) (in the order of cell numbers of cells (second plurality of cells) to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information (second space).”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches 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 YAMAMOTO ([0044-0045] “In the present embodiment, (it is assumed that) the upper triangular section of an interaction matrix U shown in FIG. 3(a) is configured. Here, i (first number of particles) and j (second number of particles) each are a particle number. The interaction matrix U is a matrix Ur,j when the particle i and the particle j form a pair of neighboring particles (cell indexes), or Ui,j =0 when the particle i and the particle j do not form a pair of neighboring particles. The pair setting unit 14 stores the largest value and the smallest value of particle numbers belonging to a cell (second plurality of cells and a number of particles) into the memory (second space) of the particle simulation device 10 for each cell (corresponding to each cell index), based on the information input (generate second inclusion information) 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 (first and second plurality of cells and a number of particles included in a cell)(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.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([Figure 3a] and [Figure 3b].) Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
PNG
media_image5.png
701
1288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Figure 3a and Figure 3b Reference
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA, GUO, and BOYER teach the limitations in Claim 2. Claim 3 is rejected because YAMAMOTO further teaches wherein the 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 YAMAMOTO ([0039] “The position information acquisition unit 12 (first processor) is position information acquisition means for acquiring (generate) position information indicating the position of the particle, for each of a plurality of particles. The position information acquisition unit 12 acquires a cell number (cell index) that is information (cell reference information) indicating the cell (first space) in which the particle is positioned, as position information, for each of a plurality of particles (number of particles included in a cell). See also YAMAMOTO ([0043] “The pair setting unit 14 is pair setting means for selecting a pair of particles neighboring to each other based on the position information acquired (first accumulation information) by the position information acquisition unit 12, and setting a pair number (pair index) (or cell index or unique identifier used to locate and calculate nearby particle interactions) for the selected pair based on the particle number of one of particles of the selected pair that is set by the particle number setting unit 13 (corresponding to a cell index before each cell index). The particles neighboring to each other refer to two particles that may possibly be in contact with each other.” See also YAMAMOTO ([0079] “Also in the method described in Non-Patent Literature 1, the work area is divided into cells as in the present embodiment, and the particle number (cell reference information) corresponding to the position of each particle is set for each particle.”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches 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 YAMAMOTO ([0052] “The reference information (pair list, pair index matrix) is referred to when the sum of contact force of each particle is calculated after the contact force generated between particles is calculated for each pair. The reference information for referring to the pair number of the pair with the particle j having a particle number (i<j) greater than the particle number i of the particle of interest is the matrix R(1) generated by the pair setting unit 14. The reference information generation unit 15 (second processor) generates a matrix R(2) (second space) that is reference information (generates second accumulation information) for referring to the pair number of the pair with the particle j having a particle number (i>j) (number of particles included in the cell) smaller than the particle number i (corresponding to a cell index) of the particle of interest. R(2) is a matrix in which the pair number of the pair with a particle having a particle number smaller than the particle number of interest (before each cell index of the second space) is stored for each particle number i.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0056] illustrating Math 1 equation. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
PNG
media_image6.png
424
695
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
361
693
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA, GUO, and BOYER teach the limitations in Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected because YAMAMOTO teaches generate the integrated cell reference information by summing inclusion information of cells corresponding to the same index and summing accumulation information of cells corresponding to the seam cell index, respectfully YAMAMOTO ([0042] “The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers (integrated cell reference information) of cells to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information.” See also YAMAMOTO ([0045] “The pair setting unit 14 sets particles belonging to the same cell (first cell) or adjacent cells (second cell) (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.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0046] “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 (first cell) that the particle of interest (integrated cell reference information) belongs to and particles belonging to cells (second cell) adjacent to the cell (first cell).”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0051] “The reference information generation unit 15 is reference information generation means for generating a matrix having the pair number set by the pair setting unit 14 and the particle numbers of particles of the pair as components of a row, sorting the order of a column of the matrix based on the particle number of another particle of the pair, and generating reference information for referring to the pair number of a pair including a particle by the particle number i of the particle, based on the sorted matrix. The reference information generation unit 15 sets the smaller particle number i of the particle numbers of particles of a pair as a component of one column of the matrix and sets the larger particle number j of the particle numbers of particles of the pair as a component of another column. See also YAMAMOTO [Math 1 Equation].” See also YAMAMOTO ([0101] “The effectiveness of the present invention for the entire particle simulation was evaluated as follows. Specifically, SPH simulation was conducted, including construction of a pair list, computation of force, summing of force (summing inclusion information of cells), and summation of equations of motion. The particles follow equations of motion (corresponding to the same cell index), and in addition to contact force f,,1 (inclusion information) between particles, external force fext (accumulation information) acting on particles is taken into consideration for the particles.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0105] “Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 12(b), the elapsed time taken to execute calculation, summing, and time summation of force was measured at each time (step). In the graph in FIG. 12(b), the elapsed time taken to construct a pair list is measured, and the moving average of 100 times (steps) is shown. In the graph in FIG. 12(b), when t having the largest value of effective density is about 1.3, it takes the longest time to construct a pair list, and the time taken to construct a pair list is shorter in the present embodiment than in the method described in Non-Patent Literature 1. In this way, the present embodiment particularly improves the performance particularly in compression of fluid through gravity shock.”)
PNG
media_image8.png
358
534
media_image8.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Prior Art Reference: Math Equation 1 – Part 1
PNG
media_image9.png
294
571
media_image9.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Prior Art Reference: Math Equation 1 – Part 2
YAMAMOTO further teaches generate the integrated particle reference information based on storing the first particle reference information and the second particle reference information in parallel YAMAMOTO ([0003] “A particle simulation embodies the movement of the entire particle group (generate the integrated particle reference information) by storing the positions (storing the first particle reference information) and velocities (storing the second particle reference information in parallel) of individual particles as variables and tracking their changes based on a model. In particular, in the methods widely used as particle simulations, such as discrete element method (DEM) (clods, sands), smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) (fluids), and molecular dynamics (MD) (molecules, proteins), the interactions between particles are simulated, and specifically the interactions are assumed to be symmetric (action-reaction law).”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0038] “The particle information storage unit 11 is means for storing particle information for each of a plurality of particles in the work area. The particle information includes information indicating the coordinates (first particle reference information) of each particle, the velocity (second particle reference information) of each particle, and the particle radius. The coordinates of each particle are three-dimensional coordinates indicating the position of the particle in the workspace. The velocity of each particle includes translational velocity and rotational velocity.”)
YAMAMOTA does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of processors includes a third processor configured to includes a third processor.
However, GUO teaches wherein the plurality of processors includes a third processor configured to includes a third processor GUO ([Introduction] “The highly scalable parallel performance relies on a good assignment of particles to processors (first, second, third, etc.) and grouping physically close particles within a single processor (third processor) reduces inter-processor communication ()… the sub-regions are then further divided by recursive application of the same splitting algorithm until the number of sub-regions equals the number of processors (first, second, third, etc.).”) See also GUO ([Section III | Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] “In the ISPH code, the particles were placed in cells which were then used to construct the neighbour list.”) See also GUO ([Section II. Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing | Algorithm 1] where algorithm 1 calls for cell generation or cell construction through decomposition and dynamic load balancing. Here, Algorithm 1 also calls for the cell management of the total number of timesteps that considers partition changes, decomposition cells, and parameter changes that indicate whether or not there was a partition change.”) See also GUO ([Section B. Particles Data Management] “The current approach uses three counters (three processors) to distinguish three different kind of particles, nploca, nphalo, npmirror, the particles’ local index are less than nploca are owned particles, any particles’ local index are greater than nploca and less than nphalo, are halo particles, the particles’ local index are greater than nphalo and less than npmirror are mirror particles. This arrangement means generating mirror particles becomes a local process and each partition only needs to maintain the particles belonging to it; halo particles are then copied through halo exchange.”) See also GUO ([FIG. 1(a) Cells Decomposition with 4 MPI Tasks] and [FIG.1(b) Particles Decomposition According to Their Cell Decomposition].)
PNG
media_image10.png
567
1172
media_image10.png
Greyscale
GUO Prior Art Reference: Figure 1. Domain Decomposition DAM Break Test Case
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by generating the integrated particle reference information. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA, GUO, and BOYER teach the limitations in Claim 1.
YAMAMOTO does not teach wherein third processor is further configured to derive a number of particles positioned in the first space and the number of particles positioned in the second space based on the integrated cell reference information.
However, GUO teaches wherein the third processor GUO ([Introduction] “The highly scalable parallel performance relies on a good assignment of particles to processors (first, second, third, etc.) and grouping physically close particles within a single processor (third processor) reduces inter-processor communication ()… the sub-regions are then further divided by recursive application of the same splitting algorithm until the number of sub-regions equals the number of processors (first, second, third, etc.).”)
GUO also teaches derive a of particles positioned in the first space and the number of particles positioned in the second space based on the integrated cell reference information GUO ([Introduction] “This paper describes an alternative partitioning and dynamic load balancing approach by using Hilbert Space Filling Curve (HSFC) to decompose the cells (derive a number of particles positioned) with number of particles in each cell (first and second spaces) as the cells’ weight functions (integrated cell reference information).”)
GUO also teaches 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 GUO ([Section III A. Mirror Particles] “The number of mirror particles depends on the number of particles near the domain boundaries, the number of mirror particles can change quite dramatically, therefore, it is almost impossible to precisely preallocate memory for mirror particles at each time step using array data structures. In the serial ISPH version, mirror particles are generated with the following procedure: insert (allocate) all the particles into cells (first spaces to the first processor) according to original domain size, identify which particles have mirror particles and generate their mirror particles, regenerate the mirror cells according to the enlarged domain size (based on the number of particles positioned in the second space), reinsert (allocate) the entire particles including mirror particles into cells (second spaces to the second processors).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by allocating the first space to the first processor and allocating 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. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA and GUO teach the limitations in Claim 1.
YAMAMOTO does not explicitly teach wherein the third processor is further configured to identify an exchange target particle based on the second cell reference information.
However, GUO teaches wherein the third processor GUO ([Introduction] “The highly scalable parallel performance relies on a good assignment of particles to processors (first, second, third, etc.) and grouping physically close particles within a single processor (third processor) reduces inter-processor communication ()… the sub-regions are then further divided by recursive application of the same splitting algorithm until the number of sub-regions equals the number of processors (first, second, third, etc.).”)
However, GUO teaches identify an exchange target particle based on the second cell reference information GUO ([III A. Halo Exchange] “As the result of using above domain decomposition algorithm, each partition’s sub-domain becomes irregular (see Fig. 1 (a) and (b)). In order to construct the halo cells, we can’t just use their coordinates (second cell reference information) as we are doing in block partition methods. Instead, we need setup a searching algorithm to identify halo cells (configured to identify an exchange target particle), and construct the data structure (based on the second cell reference information) to save halo information. We have designed non-structured communication plan specially for this type of problem the detail of algorithm are list below.”) See also GUO ([Algorithm 2 ISPH Halo Exchange].)
GUO also teaches 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 GUO ([Section III B. Particles Data Management] “The current approach uses three counters to distinguish
three different kind of particles (including the second particle reference information), nploca, nphalo, npmirror, the particles’ local index are less than nploca are owned particles, any particles’ local index are greater than nploca and less than nphalo, are halo particles, the particles’ local index are greater than nphalo and less than npmirror are mirror particles. This arrangement means generating mirror particles becomes a local process and each partition only needs to maintain (extract information on the exchange target particle) the particles belonging to it; halo particles are then copied through halo exchange. Maintaining particles belonging to a partition is achieved through function particles migration (movement of the exchange target particle) which involves two operations, the first operation is compressing the resident particles and the second operation (second accumulation) is copying the entering particles (second cell reference information). The particles exiting will be copied into the send buffer (instruct movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor). As the number of leaving particles and entering particles changed during the simulation, it is not appropriate to preallocate (extract) the memory for this situation, the linked list data structure (based on the information on the exchange target particle) are used here to deal with such situation.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by extracting information on the exchange target particle from the second particle reference information based on accumulation information of the second cell reference information, and instructing movement of the exchange target particle to the first processor based on the information on the exchange target particle. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA and GUO teach the limitations in Claim 6. YAMAMOTO does not explicitly teach wherein the first processor is further configured to receive data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor.
However, GUO teaches wherein the first processor is further configured to receive data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor GUO ([Section III | Domain Decomposition and Dynamic Load Balancing] , [Algorithm 1] and [Algorithm 3] where the ISPH Halo Exchange using each processor (first and second) to call for a halo plan setup including a halo exchange plan of sending and receiving particle data (configured to receive data) including domain size, cell weight, number of particles in each cell, partition changes, and particle migration (exchange target particle) from the second processor (second processor) where the load on each processor (first and second processor) is computed as the sum of the weights of objects it is assigned.”) See also GUO ([Algorithm 2] and [Algorithm 4] where algorithm 2 acts as the generation unit and updates the first particle reference information by calling the halo plan and updating halo objects (exchange target particles) while also calling for and exchanging halo objects integer IDs while algorithm 4 calls for halo cells to calculate the cell IDs and also calling to merge cells that need to send and receive communications.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by receiving data regarding the exchange target particle from the second processor. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA and GUO teach the limitations in Claim 7.
YAMAMOTO does not explicitly teach 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.
However, GUO teaches 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 GUO ([Algorithm 1] , [Algorithm 2], and [Algorithm 4] where algorithms 1 and 2 act as the generation unit (first processor) and updates the first particle reference information (first particle reference information) by calling the halo plan and updating halo objects (exchange target particles) while also calling for and exchanging halo objects integer IDs (first cell reference information) while algorithm 4 calls for halo cells to calculate the cell IDs and also calling to merge (updates the first cell reference information based on the exchange target particle) cells that need to send and receive communications.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of YAMAMOTO with GUO as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium using a plurality of processors to calculate dynamic motion of fluid and quickly analyze and express an analysis target as particles instead of using a grid based method. GUO would modify YAMAMOTO by updating the first particle reference information based on the information on the exchange target particle. The benefits of doing so reducing the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (GUO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected because the combination of YAMAMOTA and GUO teach the limitations in Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected because YAMAMOTO further teaches wherein the first and second processors are graphics processing units (GPU) and the third processor is a central processing unit (CPU) YAMAMOTO ([0035] teaches “The particle simulation device 10 is configured as, for example, a computer including hardware such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a memory, a hard disk, and a display. These components operate under a program or the like to fulfill the functions as the particle simulation device 10 described later. The particle simulation device 10 operates effectively particularly in the case of using a device capable of parallel computing. The particle simulation device 10 may not necessarily include a GPU as a computing device and may be configured to include a CPU alone (scalar computer).”
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, it is the method embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, it is the method embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Claim 13
In regards to claim 13, it is the method embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
Claim 14
In regards to claim 14, it is the method embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Claim 15
In regards to claim 15, it is the method embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Claim 16
In regards to claim 16, it is the method embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claim 17
In regards to claim 17, it is the method embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
Claim 18
In regards to claim 18, it is the method embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
Claim 19
In regards to claim 10, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN K VU whose telephone number is (703)756-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 4:30 pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights