Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-19 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2022 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Objections
The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the
claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: Claim 5, 14 recites the limitation " the other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an input unit (claim 1),
a grid generation unit (claim 1, 2)
a calculation grid system (claims 1, 10)
an output grid system (claim 1, 10)
a flow data calculation unit (claim 1, 7)
a simulation performing unit (claim 1, 9)
an information exchange unit (claim 4, 5)
an exchange information generation unit (claim 5, 6)
an information transmission unit (claim 5, 9)
The above module does not have corresponding structure found in Specification.
Each of the above generic placeholder is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) third to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the purposes of claim limitations examination, the Examiner will be interpreting the hardware structure associated with the unit and system as mentioned above in view of fig 1 and specification page 6-
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 1-18 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 recite the limitations a. an input unit (claim 1),
b. a grid generation unit (claim 1, 2)
c. a calculation grid system (claims 1, 10)
d. an output grid system (claim 1, 10)
e. a flow data calculation unit (claim 1, 7)
f. a simulation performing unit (claim 1, 9)
g. an information exchange unit (claim 4, 5)
h. an exchange information generation unit (claim 5, 6)
i. an information transmission unit (claim 5, 9)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in specification. According to MPEP § 2181(II)(B) "the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.” The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to the module for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 2-9 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Claim 11-18 are dependent claims of claim 10 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 10 and thus rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims recite the limitations
a. an input unit (claim 1),
b. a grid generation unit (claim 1, 2)
c. a calculation grid system (claims 1, 10)
d. an output grid system (claim 1, 10)
e. a flow data calculation unit (claim 1, 7)
f. a simulation performing unit (claim 1, 9)
g. an information exchange unit (claim 4, 5)
h. an exchange information generation unit (claim 5, 6)
i. an information transmission unit (claim 5, 9)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in Specification. In particular, note that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” [MPEP 2181 II.B]. The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to all the different module for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and are indefinite.
Claim 2-9 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Claim 11-18 are dependent claims of claim 10 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 10 and thus rejected as well.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer program stored in a medium” encompasses signals per se. The specification does not include a special definition nor does it limit the mediums to only non-transitory. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). Examiner suggest that claim 19 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable medium to overcome this rejection. Accordingly, claim 19 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
9. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-9 is directed to system or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claims: 10-18 are directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim 19 is directed to a computer program stored in a medium, which is directed to signals per se. Even though this is not a statutory category of invention, in the interest of compact prosecution, the analysis of claim 19 will continue below. Therefore claims 1-18 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention and claim 19 is not directed to a statutory claimed invention.
Claim 1, 10 and 19 recites
Step 2A, Prong 1
generating a calculation grid system for calculating flow data and an output grid system for outputting an analysis result based on the received data; Designing a framework for data organization, calculation, and presentation is a core human mental process. For example, a person could replicate the system on paper:
Use graph paper to set up a "calculation grid." Manually write down the flow data points. Perform the analysis using a pencil, paper, and a calculator. Draw a second "output grid" to display the results. See fig 2A-2C-The fact that this can be done manually, even if inefficiently, indicates that the underlying concept is a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas)
calculating flow data regarding a plurality of particles based on the calculation grid system and performing the fluid analysis simulation based on the output grid system; (This falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 4 through 8 as described on [pages 19-22] of the specification.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1, 10 and 19 recites the additional elements of receiving data regarding an analysis target for a fluid analysis simulation which are mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element of a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation device comprising: an input unit, a grid generation unit, a flow data calculation unit and a simulation performing unit in claim 1 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional element of a computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions for performing a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions in claim 19 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1, 10 and 19 recites the additional elements of receiving data regarding an analysis target for a fluid analysis simulation are recited at a high level of generality which are mere data gathering and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The additional element of a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation device comprising: an input unit, a grid generation unit, a flow data calculation unit and a simulation performing unit in claim 1 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The additional element of a computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions for performing a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions in claim 19 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 and 11 further recites wherein the calculation grid system includes a first calculation grid system and a second calculation grid system which is denser than the first calculation grid system, and the grid generation unit assigns a number to a grid point of each of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system. A person could perform the described steps of generating a denser grid and assigning numbers to its points with pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 and 12 further recites wherein in a region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap, all grid points of the first calculation grid system overlap with the grid points of the second calculation grid system. The concept that in an overlapping region of two calculation grid systems, all grid points of the first system perfectly align with points of the second, is an abstract, mental idealization. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 and 13 further recites wherein in a region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap, all grid points of the first calculation grid system overlap with the grid points of the second calculation grid system. It describes the generic steps of collecting information from grid system, comparing it to another, and exchanging data. These are basic data-processing activities that can be performed by a human. The human mind can mentally overlay two maps and conceptually process the information to identify and communicate overlapping features. Without specific, technical implementations, the process is fundamentally a mental one. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of an information exchange unit in claim 4 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 and 14 further recites generating exchange information for transferring information on overlapping grid points where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap in the region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap, and transferring information from any one of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system to the other based on the exchange information. The process begins with identifying the overlap between two grid systems, which is an observational step. Next, the generation of "exchange information" involves evaluating how to relate the data from one grid to the other. These are cognitive tasks that can be performed by the human mind. For example, one could visually inspect two overlapping grids on paper or a screen and make a judgment about which points in one grid correspond to which points in the other. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 1 as described on of the specification for transferring information. The additional element of the information exchange unit includes an exchange information generation unit and an information transmission unit in claim 5 are considered as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 and 15 further recites generates the exchange information based on whether the grid points of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap and the numbers of the overlapping grid points. The entire process can be illustrated and executed with a pen and paper. A person could: Draw the first grid on a piece of paper. Draw the second grid, perhaps using a different color or a transparent overlay, to identify overlapping points. Make a mark at each overlapping point. Count the marked points. Write down the number and any other "exchange information" on the paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 and 16 further recites wherein the flow data calculation unit calculates the flow data regarding the plurality of particles for each of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system. This falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 4 through 8 as described on [pages 19-22] of the specification. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 8 and 17 further recites wherein grid points of the output grid system overlap with both the grid point of the first calculation grid system and the grid point of the second calculation grid system. A person can visually or mentally conceptualize two different grids and a third, comparing their coordinate systems to see where a point on the output grid lies in relation to points on the other two. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 9 and 18 further recites transfers the calculated flow data from any one of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system to a grid point of the output grid system, and performs a simulation for the plurality of particles by outputting the calculated flow data to the output grid system. A person can visually or mentally conceptualize two different grids and a third, comparing their coordinate systems to see where a point on the output grid lies in relation to points on the other two. The transfer of calculated flow data to a grid point involves mapping one set of numbers to another location. This is a mental step that can be manually performed by writing down values from one table (the first or second grid system) onto another table (the output grid system). While performing particle simulation on a grid falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 4 through 8 as described on [pages 19-22] of the specification. Also, this falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract idea since it includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations shown in Equations 1 as described on of the specification for transferring information. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LIU et al. (PUB NO: CN110705183A)
Regarding claim 1, 10 and 19
LIU teaches a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation device (see fig 7 and see page 1- The invention relates to the field of fluid dynamics calculation, in particular to a multi-layer grid LBM evolution method with a buffer.) comprising:
Regarding claim 10- A Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation method (see fig 7 and see page 1- The invention relates to the field of fluid dynamics calculation, in particular to a multi-layer grid LBM evolution method with a buffer.) comprising:
Regarding claim 19- A computer program stored in a medium including a sequence of instructions for performing a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation, wherein when the computer program is executed by a computing device, the computer program includes a sequence of instructions for instructing (see fig 7 and see page 1- The invention relates to the field of fluid dynamics calculation, in particular to a multi-layer grid LBM evolution method with a buffer. See page 15- The specific algorithm flow of LBM is shown in Figure 7. The experimental conditions for flow around a cylinder are: the inlet velocity U = 0.1, and the calculation domains) comprising:
an input unit receiving data regarding an analysis target for a fluid analysis simulation; (see fig 7 The specific algorithm flow of LBM is shown in Figure 7. The experimental conditions for the flow around the cylinder are: the inlet velocity U=0.1, the computational domain is -2.5D≤x≤21.5D and -3.5D≤y≤3.5D, where D is the diameter of the cylinder. Reynolds number Re=DU/ν, D is diameter, ν is viscosity coefficient, and the value of Reynolds number is Re=100. A schematic diagram of multi-layer meshing is shown in Figure 8, which shows that five-layer meshing is performed. The multi-layer grid LBM algorithm can be summarized as: 1. Initialize the distribution function f i k , k=c, f (c represents coarse grid, f represents fine grid) on the coarse and fine grid points;)
PNG
media_image1.png
675
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a grid generation unit generating a calculation grid system for calculating flow data and an output grid system for outputting an analysis result based on the received data; (see fig 1-3 and page 8-Record the coarse grid points that have been thinned and the fine grid points generated after thinning at the junction of the coarse grid and the fine grid to form the grid points of the set buffer zone; Initialize the multilayer grid of the buffer, and perform LBM evolution on the grid points of the coarse grid and the fine grid, respectively, until the coarse grid and the fine grid of the buffer are consistent in time; The coarse grid and the fine grid are respectively spatially interpolated according to the set interpolation formula, and the distribution functions of the coarse grid and the fine grid on the buffer at the same time are calculated and obtained; Calculate the amount of flow field information)
PNG
media_image2.png
585
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
699
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Fig 1-2 illustrates the presence of both coarse grid and fine grid representative of the calculation grid system for calculating flow data. Fig 3 illustrates a system involving grids and buffer zones, which can be interpreted as an output grid system for processing and analyzing data. The arrangement of coarse and fine grids, along with buffer zones and labeled rows (r1, r2, r3, r4) and columns (c1, c2), implies a system for handling and potentially transforming data, which aligns with the concept of outputting analysis results based on received data.
flow data calculation unit calculating flow data regarding a plurality of particles based on the calculation grid system; a simulation performing unit performing the fluid analysis simulation based on the output grid system. (see page 1- The invention relates to the field of fluid dynamics calculation, in particular to a multi-layer grid LBM evolution method with a buffer. See page 8-; The coarse grid and the fine grid are respectively spatially interpolated according to the set interpolation formula, and the distribution functions of the coarse grid and the fine grid on the buffer at the same time are calculated and obtained; Calculate the amount of flow field information. see fig 7 and see page 14-17- The calculated interpolation formulas are the formulas (3)-(7) in the two-dimensional case or the formulas (8)-(16) in the three-dimensional case. The specific calculation diagram is shown in Figure 7. In this way, all grid points of the coarse and fine grids are at time t + Δt, and the distribution functions on all grid points are accurate. After that, the flow field information amount can be calculated, and then the next time step can be started. At time t + 1, use the spatial interpolation formulas (3)-(7) to calculate the distribution function on the grid points that have not been migrated in steps 2 and 3 according to the transfer mode in FIG. 9; 5. Repeat steps 2, 3, and 4 until the set termination conditions are met, such as the maximum number of cycles.)
PNG
media_image4.png
675
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: As shown in figure above, the iterative calculation of flow field variables within a grid system, driven by collision and migration calculations, strongly aligns with the description of a simulation performing fluid analysis based on an input grid system and producing flow data as output.
Regarding claim 2 and 11
LIU further teaches wherein the calculation grid system includes a first calculation grid system and a second calculation grid system which is denser than the first calculation grid system, and. (see fig 1-2)
PNG
media_image5.png
585
597
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the grid generation unit assigns a number to a grid point of each of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system. (see fig 4)
PNG
media_image6.png
368
375
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Fig 1-2 clearly shows the first Calculation Grid System as indicated by and interpreted as representing a coarser, or "first," calculation grid system. The denser grid (fine grid) can be interpreted as a "second" calculation grid system, which is indeed denser than the first. In fig4, displays a central grid point, labeled '0', and its eight immediate neighbors, each assigned a number from 1 to 8, with arrows indicating the direction from the central point to each neighbor.
Regarding claim 7 and 16
LIU further teaches wherein the flow data calculation unit calculates the flow data regarding the plurality of particles for each of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system. (See page 1- In this model, the fluid is discretized into a series of particles, and it is also discretized on a regular square grid in time and space. See page 9 and fig 7-The coarse grid and the fine grid are respectively spatially interpolated according to the set interpolation formula, and the distribution functions of the coarse grid and the fine grid on the buffer at the same time are calculated and obtained. Calculate the amount of flow field information.)
Regarding claim 8 and 17
LIU further teaches wherein grid points of the output grid system overlap with both the grid point of the first calculation grid system and the grid point of the second calculation grid system. (see fig 1-2 and page 8- The solid black dots in Figure 2 are the center points of the coarse grid, and the hollow square points are the center points of the fine grid. The grid points in the dashed lines are the grid points of the buffer, and the hollow dots are the thick grid in the buffer. The center point of the grid, the black solid square point is the center point of the fine grid in the buffer. According to the display in Figure 2, the grid points in the buffer zone are recorded at the junction of the coarse and fine grids. Two columns of coarse grid points that have been thinned and the fine grid points generated after thinning are recorded)
PNG
media_image7.png
307
483
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: The figure above represents a scenario where grid points of an output grid system (represented by the buffer region) overlap with both the grid points of a first calculation grid system (Coarse grid) and a second calculation grid system (Fine Grid).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 3-6, 9, 12-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (PUB NO: CN110705183A) in view of Randles et al. ("Parallel in time approximation of the lattice Boltzmann method for laminar flows." Journal of Computational Physics 270 (2014): 577-586.)
Regarding claim 3 and 12
LIU further teaches wherein in a region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap, (see fig 1-2)
PNG
media_image2.png
585
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: As shown in fig 1-2, The region where the first calculation grid system (coarse grid) and the second calculation grid system (fine grid) overlap is referred to as the (buffer zone) or (boundary grid zone).
LIU does not teach all grid points of the first calculation grid system overlap with the grid points of the second calculation grid system.
In the related field of invention, Randles teaches all grid points of the first calculation grid system overlap with the grid points of the second calculation grid system; (see page 580-581 and fig 2-In the present approach, we leverage such a two-level hierarchical grid refinement strategy in which a coarse grid covers the entire spatial domain and a finer grid is superimposed. Grid refinement is implemented by dividing the spatial discretization by a refinement factor m. Fig. 2 shows a refinement in which the coarse grid is half the resolution of the fine grid, with m=2. The red dashed lines indicate the placement of the fine grid while the blue lines show the coarse grid. Fig. 2 also depicts the lattice points encompassed by the simulation to emphasize the overlapping node-based method. The fine iterator uses all grid points (colored blue and red) and the coarse iterator only simulates the flow at the blue lattice points)
PNG
media_image8.png
470
787
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: The image description states that the "coarse iterator applies only to the blue ones," indicating that the blue dots represent the grid points of the coarse grid system. The description also notes that "the fine iterator applies to each grid point, both red and blue," meaning the fine grid system includes both the red and blue dots. Since the blue dots are explicitly stated to be part of both the coarse and fine grid systems, it confirms that all grid points of the coarse system (blue dots) are also part of the fine grid system, thus demonstrating overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of a Lattice Boltzmann Method (LBM)-based fluid analysis simulation as disclosed by LIU to include all grid points of the first calculation grid system overlap with the grid points of the second calculation grid system as taught by Randles in the system of LIU in order to use a time parallel LBM code on large scales efficiently, carefully designed coarse and fine iterators are needed. We showed that this goal can be met by means of the multigrid approach. By combining mesh refinement methods with the parallel algorithm, we were able to study longer time intervals of a fluid simulation in a shorter wall-clock time, within which, through iterative refinement, the compute-intensive fine iterator is modeled with temporal parallelization. Thus, the novel combination of mesh refinement and the parallel algorithm presented in this work provide a method to considerably extend the intrinsic strong scaling limit of classical LBM codes and therefore minimize the runtime of fixed-size fluid simulations. (See conclusion, Randles)
Regarding claim 4 and 13
LIU further teaches an information exchange unit exchanging information between the plurality of grid systems in a region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid syst overlap. (see fig 9 and page 16-17- migration: [Image Omitted] (the distribution function of the grid points at the interface with the coarse grid in the buffer zone is not migrated for the moment); at time t +1, the distribution function on the grid points which are not migrated in steps 2 and 3 is calculated according to the transfer mode in fig. 9 by using spatial interpolation formulas (3) - (7); and repeating the steps 2, 3 and 4 until a set termination condition, such as the maximum circulation number, is met.)
PNG
media_image9.png
614
525
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 and 14
LIU further teaches wherein the information exchange unit includes an exchange information generation unit generating exchange information for transferring information on overlapping grid points where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap in the region where the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap, and an information transmission unit transferring information from any one of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system to the other based on the exchange information. (see fig 9 and page 16-17-migration: [Image Omitted] (the distribution function of the grid points at the interface with the coarse grid in the buffer zone is not migrated for the moment); at time t +1, the distribution function on the grid points which are not migrated in steps 2 and 3 is calculated according to the transfer mode in fig. 9 by using spatial interpolation formulas (3) - (7); and repeating the steps 2, 3 and 4 until a set termination condition, such as the maximum circulation number, is met.)
PNG
media_image9.png
614
525
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: In above figure, a coarse grid (represented by larger squares) and a finer grid (represented by smaller squares). The highlighted areas (e.g., c1, c2, f1, f2, f3, f4) indicate regions where the two grids interact or overlap. These regions are crucial for data exchange. the arrows and the concept of "Data transfer between coarse and fine grids in the buffer" explicitly demonstrate the transfer of information between the two grid systems based on based on the spatial relationship and overlap of their respective grid points. The lower left further illustrates how data might be transferred or interpolated between different grid resolutions.
Regarding claim 6 and 15
LIU further teaches wherein the exchange information generation unit generates the exchange information based on whether the grid points of the first calculation grid system and the second calculation grid system overlap and the numbers of the overlapping grid points. (see fig 9 and page 16-17- the distribution function of the grid points at the interface with the coarse grid in the buffer zone is not migrated for the moment); at time t +1, the distribution function on the grid points which are not migrated in steps 2 and 3 is calculated according to the transfer mode in fig. 9 by using spatial interpolation formulas (3) - (7); and repe