DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 9-14 and 16-17 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Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims are Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112(f) rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112(a) rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112(b) rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant currently amends each of independent claims 9, and 17 to recite a fluid analysis by performing a smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) 3D flow analysis on fluid using the height of the particle having a largest height among the particles in each of the particle groups and, further, the SPH 3D analysis is recited as including calculating flow data caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space and performing a fluid analysis simulation based on the flow data. Support for the recitation of the SPH flow analysis may be found in the description at, e.g., paragraphs [0065] - [0068] of the specification of the present application. Applicant provides a reference from New Astronomy Reviews and argues that SPH flow analysis incorporates adjustments for local resolution changes and can be extended to special and general relativity. Accordingly, Applicant argues that the SPH flow analysis is not, and cannot be inferred to be, performed by the human mind and submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application as improving smooth particle hydrodynamics flow analysis, and thus further qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments as the present claim limitations do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field. Here, Applicant submits current amendments based on citing specification paragraph [0065]-[0068]. However, MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology.” Here, the proposed claim limitations that were derived from cancelled claims 7 and 15 and moved into independent claim 9. More specifically, the improvement or of a fluid analysis by performing a smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) 3D flow analysis on fluid using the height of the particle having a largest height among the particles in each of the particle groups and, further, the SPH 3D analysis is recited as including calculating flow data caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space and performing a fluid analysis simulation based on the flow data are abstract ideas and other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
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: Applicant alleges neither Yamamoto nor Kwan compensate for the acknowledged deficiencies of lncardona and Xia, as noted on pages 56- 57 of the Final Office Action. The description provided by Kwan is directed to the analysis of the shape of solid particle surfaces and, therefore, does not teach or suggest any technique for measuring water level in a specific space as presently recited. Yamamoto is similarly silent regarding measuring water level in a specific space. Further still, none of lncardona, Xia, Yamamoto, or Kwan teach or suggest the SPH 3D flow analysis, as recited in amended Claim 9.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner agrees with Applicant that YAMAMOTA may be silent the claim limitation of measuring water level in a specific space and that Yamamoto nor Kwan can compensate for the acknowledged deficiencies of lncardona, as noted on pages 56- 57 of the Final Office Action. However, these arguments are irrelevant because as explained in the 103 rejection portion of this action, XIA teaches measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) XIA ([Section 5.1 2D Circular Dam Break] “The performance of the model is indicated in Table 1, where the simulations performed by different SPH implementations and on different devices are compared in terms of computational time. The total runtime is also divided into three phases concerning the three major components in the model, i.e. neighbor searching, particle interaction and integration… The numerical prediction is compared with the police survey data in Fig. 16 in terms of the maximum water level (measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation).”) See also XIA ([Section 5.3 Toce River Dam Break] “Finally, the GPU-accelerated SPH-SWE model (based on smooth particle hydrodynamics) is further applied to simulate an experimental dam-break test featured with realistic domain topography and open boundaries. The physical model was set up in ENEL (Italy) to represent a 5 km reach of the Toce River in the Northern Alps. The 1:100 scaled model was built in a site with a total area of 55 m _ 13 m, with the final layout and topography as shown in Fig. 17. Inflow was provided at the upstream boundary by a measured hydrograph and free outlet was assumed at the downstream end. Time history of water level was recorded at several gauge points along the river reach.” See also XIA ([Table 1] and [Figure 16].)
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 9-14 and 16 are directed to a fluid analysis simulation method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is directed to a manufacture and is a statutory category. Therefore, claims 9-14 and 16-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 9 and 17 recite an abstract idea of measuring a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), which constitutes 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 limitation setting a measurement space where a water level is to be measured in a space where the plurality of particles exists, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging where a water level is to be measured in a space where the plurality of particles exists, as described [0014] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation dividing the measurement space into a plurality of sampling spaces formed in a height direction of the measurement space, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or removing a sampling space, which does not include the selected particle, from among the plurality of generated sampling spaces, as described on [0018] of the specification, or in the alternative, mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations by dividing a bottom surface of the measurement space into a plurality of sampling areas defined by an X-coordinate value on the X-coordinate and a Z-coordinate value on the Z-coordinate, and generating the sampling space defined by the X- coordinate value, the Z-coordinate value and a Y-coordinate value on the Y-coordinate, as described on [0017] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation measuring a water level in the measurement space based on a height of a particle included in each sampling space, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or measuring, as the water level in the measurement space, a height value of a particle having the largest height among particles included in the selected particle group in each of the generated sampling areas, as described on [0014], [0019], and [0021] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation deriving height values of respective particles included in the sampling space, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the height values of the respective particles, as described on [0058] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation arranging the particles included in the sampling space in ascending order based on a set of derived height values of the respective particles, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the derived height values of the respective particles, as described on [0058] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation generating one or more particle groups by grouping the arranged particles, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the one or more particle groups and determine how the arranged particles are grouped, as described on [0060] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or smaller than a predetermined value into the same particle group and to classify two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or larger than the predetermined value into different particle groups, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the fluid using the measured water level, as described on [0020] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation performing fluid analysis by performing a smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) 3D flow analysis on the fluid using the height of the particle having a largest height among the particles in each of the particle groups, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the fluid using the measured water level, as described on [0066] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitation calculating flow data caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space constitutes an abstract idea based mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations, as described on [0068] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
The limitation performing a fluid analysis simulation based on the flow data, similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, cover mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging or analyzing the fluid using the measured water level, as described on [0089] of the specification. That is, other than reciting by a computer, nothing in the claim limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 10-16 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 17 recites the additional element of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” 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 limitations of a computer-implemented method for measuring a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and do not amount to a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional limitation of “receiving data about a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation,” similarly recited in claims 9 and 17, 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 limitation wherein the water level is measured for each of the one or more particle groups, similarly recited in claims 9 and 17, 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 limitations of wherein the water level measurement unit wherein in the measuring a water level, a height value of a particle having the largest height among particles included in the selected particle group in each of the generated sampling areas is measured as the water level in the measurement space, recited in claim 16, can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and do not amount to a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 10-16 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
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 non-transitory computer-readable medium,” 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 limitations of a computer-implemented method for measuring a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 17, can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional limitation of “receiving data about a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation,” similarly recited in claims 9 and 17, 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 limitation wherein the water level is measured for each of the one or more particle groups, similarly recited in claims 9 and 17, 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 limitations of wherein the water level measurement unit wherein in the measuring a water level, a height value of a particle having the largest height among particles included in the selected particle group in each of the generated sampling areas is measured as the water level in the measurement space, recited in claim 16, can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 10-16 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims does not amount to significantly more.
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.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein in the setting a measurement space, the coordinates of the measurement space and the plurality of particles are moved in order for the center of the measurement space to be located at an origin of an orthogonal coordinate system,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 11 recites “determining whether the center of each of the plurality of particles is located inside the measurement space and selecting a particle existing inside the measurement space from among the plurality of particles,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein a cross section of the measurement space is defined by the X-coordinate and the Z-coordinate, and a height of the measurement space is defined by the Y-coordinate,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 recites “in the generating sampling spaces, a bottom surface of the measurement space is divided into a plurality of sampling areas defined by an X-coordinate value on the X-coordinate and a Z- coordinate value on the Z-coordinate, and the sampling space defined by the X-coordinate value, the Z-coordinate value and a Y-coordinate value on the Y-coordinate is generated,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes” or in the alternative “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein in the generating sampling spaces, a sampling space, which does not include the selected particle, is removed from among the plurality of generated sampling spaces,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 recites “selecting a particle group with the largest difference between maximum and minimum values of heights of particles included in one of the generated particle groups,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim , which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17 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 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INCARDONA (OpenFPM: A scalable open framework for particle and particle-mesh codes on parallel computers), herein INCARDONA, in view of XIA (A GPU-accelerated smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) model for the shallow water equations), herein XIA, and in view of YAMAMOTO (US 20170193251 A1), herein YAMAMOTO.
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected because INCARDONA teaches receiving data about a plurality of particles for fluid analysis simulation INCARDONA ([Section 3.2 Decomposition] “In the second step, the sub–sub-domains are assigned to processors (receiving) (colors in Fig. 2). Because their number is larger than the number of processors, there is no trivial assignment. Instead, the additional degrees of freedom can be used to improve load balance and to reduce communication overhead. An optimal mapping would ensure that each processor (receives) the same amount of computational work (in terms of wall-clock time), while the total volume of inter-processor communication is minimized.”) See also INCARDONA ( [FIG. 2] and [Algorithm 1]) where “in order to locally provide all data required for the computations, sub-domain borders at processor boundaries are extended by a ghost layer (shaded area, shown exemplarily for the red processor) for particles.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
382
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
INCARDONA FIGURE 2 Reference
PNG
media_image2.png
273
1048
media_image2.png
Greyscale
INCARDONA Algorithm 1 Reference
INCARDONA also teaches setting a measurement space where a water level is to be measured in a space where the plurality of particles exists INCARDONA ([Section 4.2 Smoothed-particle hydrodynamics] “We use the OpenFPM-based implementation to simulate (setting) a water column (water level) impacting onto a fixed obstacle (measurement space). This ‘‘dam break’’ scenario is a standard test case for SPH simulation codes.” Fig.6 is a visualization that illustrates a measurement space in the left corner of the figure, where water levels are measured and where a plurality of particles exist in that space similar to Applicant’s measurement space (label 201) identified in Applicant’s Figure 3 diagram. See also INCARDONA [Equations 4-7] where the plurality of particles (each particle labeled p) exists.
PNG
media_image3.png
581
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
INCARDONA FIGURE 6 Reference
INCARDONA further teaches dividing the measurement space into a plurality of sampling spaces formed in a height direction of the measurement space INCARDONA ([Section 3 | The Open FPM Library] “These data abstractions are distributed (configured to divide) across multiple computers or memory address spaces in a way that is transparent to the user. This is done by decomposing the n-dimensional simulation domain into sub-domains that are then assigned processors (Fig. 2). Each processor (measurement space) only stores the particles and mesh nodes inside its subdomains (plurality of sampling spaces). Each processor also only computes the interactions and values of its particles and mesh nodes, hence parallelizing both data and work. In order for all computations to be local, sub-domains are extended by a ghost layer (halo layer) around inter-processor boundaries (Fig. 2). The width of the ghost layers is given by the particle interaction radius or the radius of the mesh stencil and can spatially vary.”) See also INCARDONA ([FIG. 2].)
PNG
media_image4.png
496
705
media_image4.png
Greyscale
INCARDONA FIGURE 2 Reference
INCARDONA does not explicitly teach measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH), formed in a height direction of the measurement space, measuring a water level in the measurement space based on a height of a particle included in each sampling space, deriving height values of respective particles included in the sampling space, arranging the particles included in the sampling space in ascending order based on the derived height values of the respective particles, and wherein the water level is measured for each of the one or more particle groups.
However, XIA also teaches measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation based on smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) XIA ([Section 5.1 2D Circular Dam Break] “The performance of the model is indicated in Table 1, where the simulations performed by different SPH implementations and on different devices are compared in terms of computational time. The total runtime is also divided into three phases concerning the three major components in the model, i.e. neighbor searching, particle interaction and integration… The numerical prediction is compared with the police survey data in Fig. 16 in terms of the maximum water level (measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation).”) See also XIA ([Section 5.3 Toce River Dam Break] “Finally, the GPU-accelerated SPH-SWE model (based on smooth particle hydrodynamics) is further applied o simulate an experimental dam-break test featured with realistic domain topography and open boundaries. The physical model was set up in ENEL (Italy) to represent a 5 km reach of the Toce River in the Northern Alps. The 1:100 scaled model was built in a site with a total area of 55 m _ 13 m, with the final layout and topography as shown in Fig. 17. Inflow was provided at the upstream boundary by a measured hydrograph and free outlet was assumed at the downstream end. Time history of water level was recorded at several gauge points along the river reach.” See also XIA ([Table 1] and [Figure 16].)
PNG
media_image5.png
365
1204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
XIA Table 1 Reference
PNG
media_image6.png
455
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
XIA Figure 16 Reference
XIA also teaches formed in a height direction of the measurement space XIA ([Section 4.12 Quad-tree neighbor searching method] “For a given cell i, the four child cells are checked sequentially. If the kth child overlaps with the searching radius, it will be processed in the same manner. Meanwhile, the cell index k, is cached in an array called pos in order to continue processing the children of the kth child of cell i later on. The checking procedure continues for child k þ 1 after all four children of child k are checked. A registered variable depth stores the level (height direction) of the quadtree (measurement space) contained at each thread. The flowchart of kernel 5 is shown in Fig.11 and an example is illustrated in Fig.12 to clarify further the aforementioned procedure.”) See also XIA ([Fig. 11] and [Fig. 12].)
PNG
media_image7.png
559
797
media_image7.png
Greyscale
FIGURE 12 – XIA Reference Height Direction of the Measurement Space
XIA also teaches measuring a water level in the measurement space based on a height of a particle included in each sampling space XIA ([Section 5.1. 2D Circular Dam Break] “Fig.14 presents the wave pattern at t = 0.69 s by means of three dimensional water surface (water levels in the measurement space based on particle height) and depth contours, obtained using 50 x 50, 100 x 100 and 200 x 200 particles, respectively. The simulation results appear to converge as the number of particles increases. Evidently, the physical features of the circular dam break are properly reproduced (measuring) with the shock wave front sharply captured, especially by the simulation with 200 x 200 particles.”) See also XIA ([Fig. 14])
PNG
media_image8.png
584
1338
media_image8.png
Greyscale
XIA Fig. 14 Reference Water Levels Based on Particle Height
XIA also teaches deriving height values of respective particles included in the sampling space XIA ([Section 3.2 Structure of the SPH-SWE code on GPUs] “After building the neighbor list (sampling space), the water depth (height values) and acceleration of each particle (respective particles) can then be calculated (derived) and this step is called particle interaction.”) See also XIA ([Fig. 1].)
PNG
media_image9.png
750
687
media_image9.png
Greyscale
XIA Reference – Figure 1 Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic Code on GPU
XIA also teaches arranging the particles included in the sampling space in ascending order based on the derived height values of the respective particles XIA ([Section 3.2 Structure of the SPH-SWE code on GPUs] “In order to optimize the data assessing efficiency, data is stored on the device by means of SoA (Structure of Arrays) rather than AoS (Array of Structures). In AoS, variables of a particle such as the position and velocity are firstly grouped into a structure, and then all these ‘structures’ are arranged together into an array to store the data in the memory. On the contrary, in SoA , different variables are not grouped together. Values of one variable of all particles, e.g. velocity, are firstly grouped into an array (ascending order), and then all these similar ‘arrays’ are grouped into a structure (sampling space). Storing the data in SoA can compact the data needed by a warp into two chunks and make data accessing become more coalesced.” See also XIA ([Section 5.1. 2D Circular Dam Break] “Fig.14 presents the wave pattern at t = 0.69 s by means of three dimensional water surface and depth contours (deriving height values of the respective particle height), obtained using 50 x 50, 100 x 100 and 200 x 200 particles, respectively. The simulation results appear to converge as the number of particles increases. Evidently, the physical features of the circular dam break are properly reproduced with the shock wave front sharply captured, especially by the simulation with 200 x 200 particles.”) See also XIA ([Section 5.2 Malpasset Dam Break] “In the simulations undertaken for this test, 6,000 particles and 24,000 particles that are uniformly distributed initially at 20 m and 10 m distance respectively are used to represent the initial still water body behind the dam. The Manning coefficient is specified to be 0.033 s/m1/3 in the whole domain. After the simulations start, the dam-break flood wave travels rapidly through the narrow valley downstream of the dam and inundates the open areas before finally reaching the sea. The numerical prediction is compared with the police survey data in Fig. 16 in terms of the maximum water level (deriving particle height values). Satisfactory agreement with the measured data suggests that both simulations successfully reproduce this highly transient dam break event.”) See also XIA ([Fig. 14] and [Fig. 16].)
PNG
media_image10.png
476
500
media_image10.png
Greyscale
XIA Fig. 14 Reference Water Levels Based on Particle Height
PNG
media_image11.png
489
650
media_image11.png
Greyscale
XIA Fig. 16 Derived Particle Height Values
XIA also teaches wherein the water level is measured for each of the one or more particle groups XIA ([Section 5.3 Toce River Dam Break] “The physical model was set up in ENEL (Italy) to represent a 5 km reach of the Toce River in the Northern Alps. The 1:100 scaled model was built in a site with a total area of 55 m _ 13 m (water level is measured), with the final layout and topography (for each of the one or more particle group) as shown in Fig. 17. Inflow was provided at the upstream boundary by a measured hydrograph and free outlet was assumed at the downstream end. Time history of water level was recorded (water level is measured) at several gauge points (for each of the one or more particle group) along the river reach. During the simulation, inflow boundary conditions are represented by new particles (particle groups) generated at the upstream boundary; the initial size of the new particles is set to be 1 m _ 1 m. About 15,000 particles move in the domain when the flow reaches the free outlet. Particles passing the downstream outlet are removed from the domain to represent the transmissive boundary.”) See also XIA ([Figure 17].)
PNG
media_image12.png
403
1113
media_image12.png
Greyscale
XIA Figure 17 Reference
XIA also teaches performing fluid analysis by performing a smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) 3D flow analysis on the fluid using the height of the particle having the largest height among the particles in each of the particle groups XIA ([0035] “The numerical prediction is compared with the police survey data in Fig. 16 in terms of the maximum (largest height among particles in the selected particle group) water level (a height value of a particle). Satisfactory agreement with the measured data (is further configured to measure) suggests that both simulations successfully reproduce this highly transient dam break event.”) See also XIA ([FIG. 16].)
PNG
media_image13.png
483
586
media_image13.png
Greyscale
FIG. 14 XIA Reference - Three Dimensional Water Surface 200 x 200 Particles
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of XIA with INCARDONA as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium that can measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation. XIA would modify INCARDONA wherein measuring the water level for each of the one or more particle groups. The benefits of doing so allows for the adoption of a more efficient neighbor searching technique. (XIA [Introduction]).
The combination of INCARDONA and XIA does not explicitly teach generating one or more particle groups by grouping the arranged particles, calculating flow data caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space, performing a fluid analysis simulation based on flow data, or wherein in the generating of one or more particle groups, two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or smaller than a predetermined value into the same particle group and two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or larger than the predetermined value are classified into different particle groups.
However, YAMAMOTA teaches generating one or more particle groups by grouping the arranged particles YAMAMOTO ([0053] “The reference information generation unit 15 generates a matrix TC (1) (one or more particle groups) by arranging (grouping) the elements in rows such that the pair numbers p and the particle numbers i ( one of the particle numbers) are in ascending order (arranged particles).”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches calculating flow data caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space YAMAMOTO ([0032] “FIG. 1 shows a particle simulation device 10 according to the present embodiment. The particle simulation device 10 is a device that simulates (analyzes) the behavior of a plurality of spherical particles in a workspace. Specifically, the particle simulation device 10 calculates the force (calculating flow data) acting on each particle based on the position and velocity of each particle (caused by the collisions) for each time (step) in the simulation. The force acting on each particle includes contact force which is interaction force caused by contact (collision) that is interaction between particles (caused by collisions between the particles in the sample space). The particle simulation device 10 calculates the position and velocity of each particle at the next time based on the calculated force.”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches performing a fluid analysis simulation based on the flow data YAMAMOTO ([0068-0069] “The present processing is started, for example, by the user of the particle simulation device 10 performing the operation of starting analysis for the particle simulation device 10. 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 acquisition step).”)
YAMAMOTO also teaches wherein in the generating of one or more particle groups, two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or smaller than a predetermined value into the same particle group YAMAMOTO ([0049] “The pair setting unit 14 sets (is further configured to classify) a pair number for the pair of particles set as described above. The pair setting unit 14 sets (in the generating of one or more particle groups) pair numbers (two adjacent particles) in the ascending order of the smaller particle number (height difference equal to or smaller) of two particle numbers of a pair (same particle group). As pair numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set. If the smaller particle number of two particle numbers of a pair is identical, pair numbers are set in the ascending order of the larger particle number. In this way, a pair number is set based on the particle number of one of the particles of a pair (the smaller particle number of the particle numbers of two particles). Specifically, as illustrated in Patent Literature 1, the pair setting unit 14 sets a particle number, based on the prefix sum s,<f of the number of particles that have particle numbers greater than the particle number of the particle of interest and are paired for each particle number i. The pair numbers thus set are as shown in FIG. 2(b). The pair setting unit 14 generates a matrix R(1) shown in FIG. 3(b) in which the pair numbers of pairs formed with particles having a particle number j greater than the particle number i of the particle of interest are stored for each particle number i. The pair setting unit 14 outputs the generated U(1), s,<f, and matrix R(1) to the reference information generation unit 15.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0097] “As shown in FIG. 9(a), in DEM, a particle interacts with another particle with strong contact force (smaller height difference) acting only around the shell, and therefore each cell includes a small number of particles. On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 9(b), the particle in SPH has a shell acting very flexibly and interacts with a number of other particles.
YAMAMOTO also teaches two adjacent particles having a height difference equal to or larger than the predetermined value are classified into different particle groups YAMAMOTO ([0097] “For stable calculation, the cut-off radius of a particle in hydraulics may be set (in the generating of one or more particle groups) two to four times as large (having a height difference equal to or larger height difference) as the average (predetermined value in the same particle group) particle-to-particle distance (two adjacent particles). The particle density supposed in SPH simulation is about ten to a few tens, and the algorithm of the present embodiment is very efficient in this range of density. Therefore, the present invention improves a particle system including many interaction pairs (classified into different particle groups) such as in SPH and MD rather than DEM.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0098] “The present invention is effective also in DEM when the radii of particles are widely distributed (height difference). As shown in FIG. 9(c), for example, in the studies of the Brazil nut problem, the size of the largest particle is a few times greater than the size of the smallest particle. When the largest radius is rmax and the smallest radius is rmin the particle density in a cell is as low as (rmax/rmin)3. This is because when a particle system having uniform cells is simulated, the cell size has to be set so as to accommodate the largest particle.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([Fig. 9a], [Fig. 9b], and [Fig. 9c].)
PNG
media_image14.png
796
574
media_image14.png
Greyscale
YAMAMOTO Reference Figures 9a-9c
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 INCARDONA and XIA as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium that can measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation. YAMAMOTO would modify INCARDONA and XIA by having a height difference equal to or smaller than a predetermined value into the same particle group. The benefits of doing so reduces the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (YAMAMOTO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected because the combination of INCARDONA, XIA, and YAMAMOTA teach the limitations in Claim 9.
The combination of INCARDONA and XIA do not explicitly determining whether the center of each of the plurality of particles is located inside the measurement space, and selects a particle existing inside the measurement space from among the plurality of particles.
However, YAMAMOTO teaches determining whether the center of each of the plurality of particles is located inside the measurement space, and selects a particle existing inside the measurement space from among the plurality of particles YAMAMOTO ([0047] “Here, whether particles (plurality of particles) are to be paired may be determined (determining) based on the particle center-to-center distance (inside the measurement space), rather than simply pairing particles belonging to adjacent cells. For example, it is determined whether the particle center-to-center distance is equal to or smaller than (r,+r) (1.0+a), and a pair may be formed only (selects a particle existing inside the measurement of space among the plurality of particles) when the condition above is satisfied. Here, r, and r1 are the respective particle radii of the particles i and j.”) See also YAMAMOTO ([0059] “The contact force calculation unit 16 performs a contact determination between particles by calculating the particle-to-particle distance (or the particle center-to-center distance) based on the particle information and determining whether the calculated particle-to-particle distance is smaller than a threshold (cut-off length) stored in advance in the contact force calculation unit 16. When the particle-to-particle distance is smaller than the threshold, it is determined that the particles are in contact with each other.”)
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 INCARDONA and XIA as the references deal using a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)-based fluid analysis simulation apparatus, method, and a computer program medium that can measure a water level in a specific space for fluid analysis simulation. YAMAMOTO would modify INCARDONA and XIA by incorporating a particle selection unit that determines whether the center of each of the plurality of particles is located inside the measurement space, and selects a particle existing inside the measurement space from among the plurality of particles. The benefits of doing so reduces the bandwidth of coefficients matrix resulting in the promising performance via parallel efficiency. (YAMAMOTO [Abstract]). Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected based on the combination of these references.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected because the combination of INCARDONA, XIA, and YAMAMOTA teach the limitations in Claim 11.
INCARDONA further teaches wherein a cross section of the measurement space is defined by the X-coordinate and the Z- coordinate, and a height of the measurement space is defined by the Y-coordinate INCARDONA ([Section 4.5 Discrete Element Method] “We simulate an avalanche down an inclined plane, which has previously been used as a benchmark case for distributed-memory parallel DEM simulations using the PPM Library [76]. The simulation, visualized in Fig. 11, uses 108,908 particles radii R uniformly at random between 1.00 mm and 1.12 mm, and inertial moment I and mass m computed for each particle according to the density of sand of 1700 kg/m3. We use kn = 7849 N/m, kt = 2243 N/m, γn = γt = 34010 s−1 (notice the typo in γn,t in Ref. [76]). The size of the simulation domain is 1.5m × 0.01m × 0.21m and has fixed-boundary walls (cross section of the measurement space) i