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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is Final.
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/29/2026.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been considered.
Claim objections have been withdrawn.
The claims are interpreted in broadest reasonable interpretation, as the amendments addressed the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) aspects.
The rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The provisional rejection of Claims 1, 5, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 17/631,622 in view of of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 has been withdrawn in view of the Application being abandoned.
The rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, software per se has been withdrawn.
Claims 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The amendments have not moved the claims to eligibility. The arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive.
The rejection of Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn in view of amendments and remarks. Claims 1-6 would be allowable over the prior art of record if the rejections under 35 USC 101 were overcome.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Amendments and Arguments filed on 05/29/2026, which have been considered and have helped clarify the claimed invention and advance the prosecution.
In view of the amendments and arguments the objections have been withdrawn, the claims are interpreted under Broadest reasonable interpretation and the rejections under 35 USC 103 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, as well as the rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to software per se is withdrawn.
However, the amendments have not made the claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The method claim do not recite a level of complexity that would make them impractical to be performed in the mind; the additional elements of data gathering and field of use do not provide sufficient to integrate into a practical application or significantly more, the inventive steps come from the judicial exception. Thus, the claims remain rejected under 35 SUC 101. For this set of claims, the Examiner considers that to overcome the 101 rejection the main alternatives would be to either 1) draft the claims such that the method steps indicate complexity or that specific algorithms are used which would not be practical to be performed in the mind, or 2) draft the claim with such additional elements that indicate actions(how) that provide the improvement (so that the improvement comes from the additional elements, not from the judicial exception as it is considered in the claims drafted on 05/29/2026).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-5 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (claim 5 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-4 directed to an apparatus) – and manufacture (claim 6 directed to non-transitory computer readable medium).
(S2A1) Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine if directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrasing (in italics) is used to simplify referencing. Claims with similar limitations (even though not verbatim identical) and sharing the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps S1 and S2, are grouped, as follows. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of the group; an additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group have additional limitations.
Claim 1, representative for claims 5, 6, recites an abstract idea, shown in bold in the following:
[A] A word representation device for representing a streamline structure of a flow pattern in a two-dimensional domain in words, the device comprising a storage unit and a word representation generation unit, wherein the storage unit stores the correspondence relationship between each streamline structures and its character corresponding to a plurality of streamline structure constituting the flow pattern, and wherein the word representation generation unit comprises a processor configured to:
[B] determine a root of a given flow pattern;
[C extract the streamline structure of the given flow pattern, assigns characters to the extracted streamline structure based on the correspondence relationship stored in the storage unit, and construct a tree representation of the given flow pattern, by repeatedly executing the process of deleting the extracted streamline structure from the innermost part of the flow pattern until the root is reached; and
[D] convert the tree representation constructed by the tree representation constructing means into a partially Cyclically Ordered Tree (COT) representation and generate a word representation of the given flow pattern
[E] wherein the flow pattern is an intra-cross-sectional plane flow of a three-dimensional fluid surrounded by physical boundaries with movement, wherein the moving physical boundaries cause the flow by contraction and expansion.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claim 5, 6) recites: determining a word representation of a streamline pattern consisting of a dictionary of associations between flow pattern elements and characters, and a pattern analyzer that detects the patterns and constructs the words from characters associated with patterns with three steps [A]” (1) determining a root of a pattern [B]; (2) forming a tree representation, working from inner pattern (leaves) outwards toward the root [C] and (3)converting the tree representation to a special tree representation [D];.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the application specification as well as the guidance from MPEP 2106.04 II. B, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis, as a process aimed at: “generating a special tree representation for streamline patterns”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement regarding determination of the root, identifying streamline patterns and associating characters to them, and creating the special tree representation. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Accordingly, claim 1 (which is representative of claims 5, 6 ) recites an abstract idea.
(S2A2) The additional claim elements [A] and [E] recite a representation generating system consisting of a storage and a generator, and a clarification on flow pattern; it recite a generic computing element (processor) and constitute mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and elements specifying field of use (the specific field where moving boundaries cause the flow by contraction and expansion ; The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. An improvement is apparent in the specification and the claim recites the element that provide the improvement, however the improvement comes solely from the steps considered mental processes, and thus from the judicial exception itself, and not from the additional elements. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims 1, 5, 6 do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements in [A],[E] when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; and amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and elements deriving technological environment – field of use. It does not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. There is no inventive concept - the claim as-a-whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “generating a special tree representation for a streamline pattern” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Claims 2-4 recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the streamline structure constituting the flow pattern includes the root structure on a surface with an n-bundled ss-saddle degenerated singular point.
[Claim 3] wherein the flow pattern is a pattern of intraventricular blood flow.
[Claim 4] further comprising a display unit for displaying a topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment; one should note here that claim 2 also recites a mathematical concept (n-bundled ss-saddle degenerated singular point) . They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements the structure of the flow pattern– and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
Therefore, claims 2-4 are deemed ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter over the prior at of record.
The limitation(s) include a word representation method for representing a streamline structure of a flow pattern in a two-dimensional domain in words, with a processor configured to determine a root of a given flow pattern; extract the streamline structure of the given flow pattern, assign characters to the extracted streamline structure based on the correspondence relationship stored in the storage unit, and construct a tree representation of the given flow pattern, by repeatedly executing the process of deleting the extracted streamline structure from the innermost part of the flow pattern until the root is reached; with the all of the remaining limitations.
The closest prior art references of record are Sakajo et al, US 20150248377, Sakajo T.et al , Tree representations of streamline topologies of structurally stable 2D incompressible flows, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics (2018) 83, 380–411, doi:10.1093/imamat/hxy005, Advance Access Publication on 26 March 2018, and Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 providing word representations for flows where the moving physical boundaries cause the flow by contraction and expansion, that teach a word representation device for a flow through a space with fixed boundaries. By contrast, the flow in the claim limitations is through a space with moving physical boundaries causing the flow by contraction and expansion.
These references alone or in combination do not disclose the limitations including wherein the flow pattern is an intra-cross-sectional plane flow of a three-dimensional fluid surrounded by physical boundaries with movement, wherein the moving physical boundaries cause the flow by contraction and expansion.in combination with the remaining limitations.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, 6 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims are allowable over the prior art of record. The dependent claims are allowable over the prior art of record for the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090107230 A1
Conclusion
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.
the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights