DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on December 12, 2025. Claims 1-7 and 10 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0330628 A1 McDaniel, Richard Gary et al. [herein “McDaniel”].
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel in view of US 2017/0193251 A1 Yamamoto, Miki et al. [herein “Yamamoto”].
This action is made 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 Amendment
The amendment filed December 12, 2025 has been entered. Claims 8-9 and 11-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 15, 2025. Examiner further acknowledges applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-7 which render the examiner’s interpretation of the 112(f) limitations moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, which cites “the structure model” in Ln. 4, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “the structure model”. For the purpose of examination, “the structure model” will be interpreted as “the mesh-based structure model” to properly refer back to the previous recitation in the claim. Claim 15, having similar limitations of claim 8, are also objected. Claims 9 and 11-14 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 8.
Claim 9, which cites “The fluid analysis simulation method” in Ln. 1, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “The fluid analysis simulation method”. For the purpose of examination, “The fluid analysis simulation method” will be interpreted as “The computer-implemented method” to properly refer back to the previous recitation in claim 8. Claims 11-14, having similar limitations of claim 9, are also objected.
Claim 12, which cites “based on the number of polygons” in Ln. 5, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “the number of polygons”. For the purpose of examination, “the number of polygons” will be interpreted as “a number of polygons”. Claims 13-14 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claim 12.
Claim 15, which cites “the instructions cause the computing device” in Ln. 4-5, is improper because there is no previous recitation of “the instructions”. For the purpose of examination, “the instructions” will be interpreted as “the executable instructions” to properly refer back to the previous recitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process, and claim 15 is directed to a program in a non-transitory computer readable medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 8 and 15: The limitations of:
“generating a mesh-based structure model composed of a plurality of polygons and a plurality of particles located inside the structure model”
“generate polygon information for each of the plurality of polygons” and “wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index”
“partition a space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist into a plurality of cells”, and
“generates cell information for each of the plurality of cells” and “wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist”,
“determine a possibility of collision between a particle and a polygon in the 3D simulation based on data about the plurality of particles, the polygon information and the cell information”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a model containing a plurality of triangles and a number of particles,
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper information about the group of triangles such as location information about the triangles based on what cells the triangles are located in,
a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper divide the model to create portions or cells in the model by effectively dividing the area which contains the triangles and the particles,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper information about the cells such as a number identifier based on where the cell is location in the model, such as assigning the cell at the bottom left in the mesh to be 0 incrementing the cells to the right by one, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that if the particle and triangle are located in the same cell then there is a possibility of collision between the particle and the triangle.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 8 and 15 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 8 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “that includes a 3D simulation area” and “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions to perform a fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), wherein, when executed by a computing device” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 8 and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 8 and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites an additional limitation of “standardizes the polygon so as to be included in a predetermined number of cells or less”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper divide the model to create portions or cells in the model by effectively dividing the area which contains the triangles and the particles which the triangle must be included in 2 cells or less.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the generating polygon information includes arranging the polygon reference information in ascending order based on the cell index”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally sort or draw with pen and paper the location information in ascending order based on the numbering of the cell location.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 12, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the generating cell information includes generating cell reference information based on the position information of the polygon and the cell index, the cell reference information includes inclusive information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to each cell index”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper information about the cell such as how many triangles a cell contains.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper information about the cell such as an accumulative total of the number of triangles in the previous cell location as the number identifier of the cell increases.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 14, it recites additional limitations of “wherein the determining a possibility of collision includes: extracting the cell index of respective ones of the plurality of cells including the particle for each of the plurality of particles based on position information of the particle” and “determines the possibility of collision between the particle and the polygon based on the cell index of the cell including the particle, the cell reference information and the polygon reference information”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper information about the cell location for each cell that contains a particle based on where the particle is located, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper that if the particle and triangle are located in the same cell then there is a possibility of collision between the particle and the triangle.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 8-9 and 11-15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9 and 11-15 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0330628 A1 McDaniel, Richard Gary et al. [herein “McDaniel”].
As per claim 8, McDaniel teaches “A computer-implemented method for fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), the method comprising: generating a mesh-based structure model that includes a 3D simulation area composed of a plurality of polygons and a plurality of particles located inside the structure model”. (Para. 0019, “Particle-based fluid simulation methods, such as smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), may be used to achieve interactive fluid simulation” [fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)]. “To provide simulation with bodies within the fluid and maintain interactive speeds, fast boundary handling is provided to couple the particle-based fluid simulation with the other bodies” [generating a mesh-based model composed of bodies inside the structure model]. Para. 0019, “An easy to compute and update mapping between solid objects and fluid particles results in only particles within proximity of the solid surface being tested for collision” [objects and particles]. Para. 0026, “For simulation, the solid object's surface is modeled as primitives, such as a mesh of triangles” [a plurality of polygons, mesh-based]. Para. 0050, “a two or three-dimensional distribution of simulated particles is defined” [a plurality of particles]. “The particles are points representing in aggregate the fluid being simulated” [located inside the structure model]. Para. 0051, “the simulation space is subdivided into a three-dimensional (3D) grid such that a fluid particle is located in only one cell during any simulation step” [model that includes a 3D simulation area]. Para. 0073, “The processor 16 is implemented on a computer platform having hardware such as one or more central processing units (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), and input/output (I/O) interface(s). The computer platform also includes an operating system and microinstruction code. The various processes and functions described herein may be either part of the microinstruction code or part of the program (or combination thereof) which is executed via the operating system” [e.g., a computer-implemented method]. Further see Para. 0019, 0022-0024, 0050-0051, and 0073-0076. The examiner has interpreted that a processor having hardware and code to perform a fluid smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation and providing the simulation within the fluid with bodies that are solid objects modeled as a mesh of triangles and particles in aggregate of the fluid in a 3D grid as a computer-implemented method for fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), the method comprising: generating a mesh-based structure model that includes a 3D simulation area composed of a plurality of polygons and a plurality of particles located inside the structure model.)
McDaniel also teaches “generating polygon information for each of the plurality of polygons”. (Para. 0024, “A large solid object is divided into small fragments of one or more primitives each” [e.g., polygon is partitioned]. Para. 0038, “a bounding volume is formed for each fragment” [forming bounding volume for each partitioned polygon, e.g., generating polygon information for each of the plurality of polygons]. Further see Para. 0038 and 0022-0024. The examiner has interpreted that forming a bounding volume for each fragment of the large solid object as a generating polygon information for each of the plurality of polygons.)
McDaniel also teaches “partitioning a space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist into a plurality of cells and generates cell information for each of the plurality of cells”. (Para. 0051, “the simulation space is subdivided into a three-dimensional (3D) grid such that a fluid particle is located in only one cell during any simulation step.” [partitioning a space where the plurality of particles exist into a plurality of cells]. Para. 0021, “the particles are separated into a regular area of grid cells. The size of the grid cell dimensions are selected so that the average number of particles within a cell will not exceed a desired number. To compute collisions between particles and solids, the boundary volumes of the solids are mapped to a block of grid cells so that particle collision testing can be restricted to only those in the affected volume as opposed to testing all particles in the simulation to every solid object” [and the plurality of polygons exist]. Para. 0055, “The cells are accessed from the one-dimensional list as a function of an index-shift. The relation between a cell index in three-dimensional space and the cell's actual memory location is given by an index function” [e.g., generates cell information for each of the plurality of cell]. Further see Para. 0021-0024 and Para. 0051-0055. The examiner has interpreted that dividing the simulation space into a grid of cells to include one fluid particle per cell and the boundary volumes of the solids in addition to indexing the cells as a list for the computer memory as partitioning a space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist into a plurality of cells and generates cell information for each of the plurality of cells.)
McDaniel also teaches “determining a possibility of collision between a particle and a polygon in the 3D simulation area based on data about the plurality of particles, the polygon information and the cell information.” (Para. 0008, “a method is provided for boundary handling in particle-based simulation. A processor divides a solid object into a plurality of fragments. The processor forms a slab cut ball for each of the fragments of the plurality. A three-dimensional distribution of simulated particles grouped into cells is defined by the processor.” [polygon in the 3D simulation area]. Para. 0021, “To compute collisions between particles and solids” [determining a possibility of collision between a particle and a polygon], “the boundary volumes of the solids are mapped to a block of grid cells” [based on data about the polygon information and the cell information] “so that particle collision testing can be restricted to only those in the affected volume as opposed to testing all particles in the simulation to every solid object. The grid cells define particle distribution and are also used to calculate the evolution of the fluid simulation” [based on data about the plurality of particles]. Further see Para. 0008-0009 and 0019-0021. The examiner has interpreted that mapping the boundary volumes of the solids to and defining the particle distribution of the grid of cells to compute collisions between particles and solids in the three-dimensional distribution of simulated particles in the particle-based as determining a possibility of collision between a particle and a polygon in the 3D simulation area based on data about the plurality of particles, the polygon information and the cell information.)
McDaniel also teaches “wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist”. (Para. 0051, “For simulation, the particles are grouped into cells. To solve the association problem between fluid particles and solid object primitives, the simulation space is subdivided into a three-dimensional (3D) grid such that a fluid particle is located in only one cell during any simulation step” [cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist]. Para. 0055, “The cells are accessed from the one-dimensional list as a function of an index-shift. The relation between a cell index in three-dimensional space and the cell's actual memory location is given by an index function” [e.g., wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells]. Further see Para. 0051-0055. The examiner has interpreted that indexing the cells in the space with the particles and the solid objects to accessed by the computer memory as wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist.)
McDaniel also teaches “wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index.” (Para. 0055, “Due to this regular distribution in the memory, a pattern of index shifts for acquiring all of the cells surrounding a given cell may be determined quickly. The grid index for the center of a fragment's bounding volume can be determined with simple shifts and multiplications” [e.g., wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index]. Further see Para. 0051-0055. The examiner has interpreted that determining the grid index for the fragment’s bounding volume through shifting with index shift function as wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index.)
As per claim 9, McDaniel teaches “wherein the generating polygon information includes standardizing the polygon so as to be included in a predetermined number of cells or less.” (Para. 0020, “the number of geometry elements, such as mesh triangle primitives, can be controlled so that the maximum number of elements does not exceed a number such as 100, 10, or other limited number of primitives. The solid object is divided in a way similar to hierarchy construction, such as repeating a binary division until the object is divided into parts with a sufficiently small number of primitives” [limiting the number of polygons, e.g., wherein the generating polygon information includes standardizing the polygon so as to be included in a predetermined number of cells]. Para. 0031, “When the number of primitives in a solid object is sufficiently large that the object cannot fit in one bounding volume, the object is divided into the fragments” [dividing the polygon to fit in bounding volume, e.g., wherein the generating polygon information includes standardizing the polygon so as to be included in a predetermined number of cells or less]. Further see Para. 0020-0022, 0030-0032, and 0057-0059. The examiner has interpreted that controlling the maximum number of mesh triangle primitives to not exceed when dividing the solid object to fit in a bounding volume as wherein the generating polygon information includes standardizing the polygon so as to be included in a predetermined number of cells or less.)
As per claim 12, McDaniel teaches “wherein the generating cell reference information includes generating cell reference information based on the position information of the polygon and the cell index, the cell reference information includes inclusive information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to each cell index.” (Para. 0024, “During simulation, the mapping between the bounding volumes and blocks of grid cells is found.” Para. 0057, “slab cut balls for the fragments are mapped to the cells or vise versa” [wherein the generating cell reference information includes generating cell reference information]. “The problem can be redefined as associating a solid fragment with a set of grid cells. The mapping finds the cells intersecting the spherical extent of the slab cut ball” [e.g., based on the position information of the polygon and the cell index]. Para. 0043, “The center of the bounding volume is denoted as Cf” [dimensional information for the polygon]. Para. 0044, “The radius of fragment, f, is denoted as Rf” [polygon dimensional information]. Para. 0058, “Cf is first mapped to a three-dimensional index of a cell. The one-dimensional index of that cell is then calculated. With knowledge of Rf, the block size is determined such that a bounding volume is encompassed by the cell block” [the cell reference information includes inclusive information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to each cell index]. Further see Para. 0023-0024, 0042-0044, and 0057-0058. The examiner has interpreted that finding the mapping between the bounding volumes and grid of cells such as mapping the cells to the fragments and finding where the cells intersect with the fragment volume based on the center of the volume, radius of the fragment, and index of the cell to determine the size of the bounding volume encompassed by the cell as wherein the generating cell reference information includes generating cell reference information based on the position information of the polygon and the cell index, the cell reference information includes inclusive information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to each cell index.)
Re Claim 15, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, McDaniel teaches, “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions to perform a fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), wherein, when executed by a computing device”. (Para. 0019, “Particle-based fluid simulation methods, such as smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), may be used to achieve interactive fluid simulation” [to perform a fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)]. Para. 0072, “The computer processing performed by the processor 16 may be implemented in various forms of hardware, software, firmware, special purpose processors, or a combination thereof. Some embodiments are implemented in software as a program tangibly embodied on a non-transitory program storage device” [computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions, when executed by a computing device]. Para. 0074, “The instructions, user input (map confirmation or alteration), rules, and/or other information are stored in a non-transitory computer readable memory, such as the memory 18” [A non-transitory computer readable medium]. Para. 0075, “The instructions for implementing the processes, methods and/or techniques discussed herein are provided on computer-readable storage media or memories, such as a cache, buffer, RAM, removable media, hard drive or other computer readable storage media” [A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions]. “Computer readable storage media include various types of volatile and nonvolatile storage media. The functions, acts or tasks illustrated in the figures or described herein are executed in response to one or more sets of instructions stored in or on computer readable storage media” [computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions]. Further see Para. 0019 and 0072-0077. The examiner has interpreted that a computer processor and program storage device which has instructions on a non-transitory program storage device to achieve interactive fluid simulation through smoothed particle hydrodynamics as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions to perform a fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), wherein, when executed by a computing device.)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel in view of US 2017/0193251 A1 Yamamoto, Miki et al. [herein “Yamamoto”].
As per claim 11, McDaniel teaches “wherein the generating polygon information includes arranging the polygon reference information [in ascending order] based on the cell index.” (Para. 0055, “The grid index for the center of a fragment's bounding volume can be determined with simple shifts and multiplications”. Further see Para. 0051-0055. The examiner has interpreted that determining the index for the fragment’s bounding volume through shifting in the grid index as wherein the generating polygon information includes arranging the polygon reference information based on the cell index.)
McDaniel does not specifically teach “arranges the polygon reference information in ascending order based on the cell index.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely conducting particle simulation using SPH, Yamamoto teaches “arranging the polygon reference information in ascending order based on the cell index.” (Para. 0042, “The particle number setting unit 13 arranges the particles according to the position information (in the order of cell numbers of cells to which the particles belong) and sets (reassigns) particle numbers in the order of position information. As particle numbers, for example, integers in ascending order starting from 1 are set” [in ascending order based on the cell index]. Further see Para. 0041-0042. The examiner has interpreted that arranging the particle number according to the position information of the cell to which the particles belong to and starting from 1 and continuing the numbering in ascending order as arranges the reference information in ascending order based on the cell index.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “arranges the polygon reference information in ascending order based on the cell index” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Yamamoto, into that of McDaniel because this modification of ordering the reference information based on the cell index for the advantageous purpose of searching quickly to improve the computation efficiency (Yamamoto, Para. 0046 & 0017). Further motivation to combine be that McDaniel and Yamamoto are analogous art to the current claim are directed to conducting particle simulation using SPH.
As per claim 13, McDaniel does not specifically teach “wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index.”
However, Yamamoto teaches “wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index.” (Para. 0043, “The pair setting unit 14 is pair setting means for selecting a pair of particles neighboring to each other based on the position information acquired by the position information acquisition unit 12” [based on the number of particles [in view of McDaniel, i.e., polygons] included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index], and setting a pair number (pair index) for the selected pair based on the particle number of one of particles of the selected pair that is set by the particle number setting unit 13 [wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information]. Further see Para. 0042-0043. The examiner has interpreted that setting a pair number for each selected pair of particles based on the position information of neighboring particles as wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information which is generated based on the number of particles included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the cell reference information includes accumulative information which is generated based on the number of polygons included in respective ones of the plurality of cells corresponding to the cell index prior to each cell index” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Yamamoto, into that of McDaniel because this modification of pairing refencing information for the advantageous purpose of searching quickly to improve the computation efficiency (Yamamoto, Para. 0046 & 0017). Further motivation to combine be that McDaniel and Yamamoto are analogous art to the current claim are directed to conducting particle simulation using SPH.
As per claim 14, McDaniel teaches “wherein the determining a possibility of collision includes: extracting the cell index of respective ones of the plurality of cells including the particle for each of the plurality of particles based on position information of the particle, and determining the possibility of collision between the particle and the polygon based on the cell index of the cell including the particle, the cell reference information and the polygon reference information.” (Para. 0021, “To compute collisions between particles and solids” [wherein the determining a possibility of collision], “the boundary volumes of the solids are mapped to a block of grid cells” [extracting the cell index of respective ones of the plurality of cells] “so that particle collision testing can be restricted to only those in the affected volume as opposed to testing all particles in the simulation to every solid object” [extracting the cell index of respective ones of the plurality of cells]. The grid cells define particle distribution and are also used to calculate the evolution of the fluid simulation” [based on the cell index of the cell including the particle]. Para. 0024, “a collision test is applied for each particle within the cell against bounding volume of the fragment” [cell including a particle for each of the plurality of particles]. Further see Para. 0008-0009 and 0021-0024. The examiner has interpreted that mapping the boundary volumes of the solids to and defining the particle distribution of the grid of cells to compute collisions between particles and the boundary volumes only in cells having the affect volume for each particle with a cell with a bounding volume as wherein the determining a possibility of collision includes: extracting the cell index of respective ones of the plurality of cells including the particle for each of the plurality of particles based on position information of the particle, and determining the possibility of collision between the particle and the polygon based on the cell index of the cell including the particle, the cell reference information and the polygon reference information.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amended independent claim language of a “a non-transitory computer readable medium” which directs the claim to a statutory subject matter. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 8 and 15 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application as claim features recite improvements to another technology or technical field (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 7-8).
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”. MPEP § 2106.05(a) also recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
The examiner has provided the rational for the independent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. Specifically, the limitation of “generating a mesh-based structure model composed of a plurality of polygons and a plurality of particles located inside the structure model”, has been identified as a mental process since a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a model, being a partitioned-object, containing a plurality of triangles and a number of particles. Further, the limitation of “determine a possibility of collision between a particle and a polygon in the 3D simulation based on data about the plurality of particles, the polygon information and the cell information” has been identified as a mental process since a person can mentally determine if the particle and triangle are located in the same cell then there is a possibility of collision between the particle and the triangle. The additional elements are “that includes a 3D simulation area” and “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a sequence of executable instructions to perform a fluid analysis simulation based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH), wherein, when executed by a computing device” which are merely using the generic computer components and functions being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, there are no additional element limitations in the independent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology as listed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the examiner has also provided the rational for the dependent claim limitations that are being directed to a mental process in the rejection above. Therefore, there are no additional limitations in the dependent claims which can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improvements to the technology or through the use of meaningful limitations.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite mental processes and limitations that merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that reference does not teach each and every limitation in the amended claims 8 and 15 because cited reference fails to teach “wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist, and wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index” (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 8).
MPEP § 2143.03 states that “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art” and “Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.”
As original mapped above in claim 1, McDaniel discloses “wherein the generating of the cell information includes generating a cell index based on a position of a respective one of the plurality of cells in the space where the plurality of particles and the plurality of polygons exist” as indexing the cells in the space with the particles and the solid objects to accessed by the computer memory. If the cells which contain the particles and solid objects, which are the polygons, are indexed to be accessed by computer memory as disclosed, then all words of the claimed limitation is taught. Furthermore, McDaniel discloses “wherein the generating of the polygon information includes generating polygon reference information based on position of the polygon and the cell index” as determining the grid index for the fragment’s bounding volume through shifting with index shift function. The bounding volume of the fragment, e.g., parts of the solid object, which is the polygon, is determined by the shifting with index shift function, which is the cell index. Therefore, both claimed limitations are taught as filed.
Therefore, all of the limitations of the amended claims 8 and 15 are disclosed in McDaniel. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 8 and 15 as anticipate by McDaniel is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schäfer, Christoph et al. in “A smooth particle hydrodynamics code to model collisions between solid, self-gravitating objects.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 590 (2016) teaches a method for modeling collisions using SPH and indexing between cells for location of particles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188