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 a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 09/27/2022.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1-4 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1, 5, and 6 are provisionally rejected 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 .
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 (mental process), without significantly more.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, software per se.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM, in further view of Noack et al, Optimal mixing in circulation zones, Physics of fluids, Vol 16, Number 4, 2004, hereinafter NOA.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM in further view of Helman et al Representation and display of vector field topology in fluid flow data sets, Computer, Vol 22, Issue 8. 1989, hereinafter HEL
Priority
The application claims priority to the Japanese Application JP2020-013646, filed on 01/30/2020. The WIPO certificate of availability of a certified patent document in a digital library, together with the Japanese version are acknowledged, however no English translation was provided.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The IDS submitted on 12/15/2022 does not have all English translation of the Japanese documents, e.g. for WO2016/072515 A1.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym COT is used, without being defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the word representation generation unit comprises a rout determining means” which is likely a typo and should recite “the word representation generation unit comprises a root determining means”. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the root. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” or “step” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, this includes the limitations in claim 1 reciting “rout (root) determining means”, “tree representation construction means” COT representation generation means”, and in claim 5 and 6 , these include “root determining step”, “tree representation step” and COT representation generation step.
In addition, this includes the limitations in claim 1, 5, 6 that recite “word generation representation unit”, wherein the word “unit” is interpreted as a nonce term.
To advance prosecution “means” will be interpreted as the computer implementing the algorithmic function, e.g. the “root determining means” will be interpreted as the computer implementing the root determination function specified in the algorithm in the specification; similarly the “step” interpreted as the part of the algorithm for specific function, while “unit” as the hardware/software module that implements the specific function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation, in claim 1, “a rout determining means", “a tree representation construction means”, and a “COT representation generation means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function. For example, root determination means is referred to in the specification [0006] “The root determination means 21 determines a root of a given flow pattern.”. The actual root determination means is unclear. Although the specification includes a description of algorithms the specification does not clearly link those algorithms with claimed means for performing the recited functions (one can also not determine if specified algorithms are completely covering the means. In the absence of clearly linked corresponding structure for each recited function, the claim is indefinite.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 5, 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The structure for root determination means, tree representation forming means, and COT representation generation means is not enabling.
For example, root determination means is referred to in the specification [117] “The root determination means 21 determines a root of a given flow pattern.”. The actual root determination means is unclear. For similar reasons, “word representation generation unit” which includes the above ‘means’ is unclear.
Dependent claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as they inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 5, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/631, 622 in view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences do no impart patentable distinctness. For example the additional limitation “including an incompressible fluid and a compressible fluid” (interpreted in essence as all fluids) merely represents an obvious variation over limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Because the broader claim already encompasses the narrow species under BRI, the difference does no impart patentable distinctness.
The claims are presented for comparison below. The difference, in bold, is analyzed after.
17/795,600 (instant)
Claim 1, representative for 5, 6,
17/631,622
Claim 1, representative for 7, 8,
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 rout determining means, a tree representation construction means, and a COT representation generation means,
wherein the root determining means determines the root of a given flow pattern;
the tree representation construction means extracts 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 constructs the 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 the COT representation generation means converts the tree representation constructed by the tree representation constructing means into a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern;
and wherein a flow constituting the flow pattern includes a flow generated by moving physical boundaries.
A word representation device that performs word representation of a streamline structure of a flow pattern in a two-dimensional domain, the device comprising :a computer including a storage;
wherein the storage stores a correspondence relationship between each streamline structure and a character of each streamline structure regarding a plurality of streamline structures forming the flow pattern, and
wherein the computer performs:
a root determination step of determining a root of a given flow pattern
including an incompressible fluid and a compressible fluid;
a tree representation step of forming a tree representation of the given flow pattern by repeatedly executing processing of extracting a streamline structure of the given flow pattern, assigning a character to the extracted streamline structure on the basis of the correspondence relationship stored in the storage, and deleting the extracted streamline structure from an innermost portion of the flow pattern until reaching the root;
and a partially Cyclically Ordered rooted Tree (COT) representation generation step of converting the tree representation formed by the tree representation forming step to a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern.
As per the above, Claim 1 of 17/631,622 does not specifically teach of the following limitations of 1, “wherein a flow constituting the flow pattern includes a flow generated by moving physical boundaries. “ However , SIM teaches { {[0067] … Any anatomical information may be identified, such as identifying cardiac structure associated with a particular view of a heart, a heart valve, a heart wall, a chamber, a canonical view, a tissue structure, a flow pattern, or combinations thereof.}
In broadest reasonable interpretation flow generated by moving physical boundaries interpreted as the flow generated by the heart, the physical boundaries being the heart walls.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of 17/631,622 with SIM. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of extending the modeling to a diversity of real world applications in which physical boundaries are moving, from navigation locks to syringes, from industrial pumps to organ pumps like the heart, etc. Both 17/631,622 and SIM deal with flow patterns. Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by 17/631,622 and SIM would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over 17/631,622 in view of SIM.
Thus, the claims 1, 5, and 6 are still rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over system claim 1 of US Patent 11,640,325 in view of SIM.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, (software per se). As drafted the claim is directed to a program for a process executed by computer. One way to overcome the rejection is to direct the claim to a non-transitory computer readable medium. To advance prosecution the claim will be interpreted as such.
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, in view of the abovementioned interpretation to advance prosecution, also claims 6 when interpreted as a manufacture (for claim 6 interpreted as 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 rout determining means, a tree representation construction means, and a COT representation generation means
[B] the root determining means determines the root of a given flow pattern;
[C] the tree representation construction means extracts 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 constructs the 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] the COT representation generation means converts the tree representation constructed by the tree representation constructing means into a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern
[E] wherein a flow constituting the flow pattern includes a flow generated by moving physical boundaries.
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]; determining a root of a pattern [B]; forming a tree representation, working from inner pattern (leaves) outwards toward the root [C] 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 a streamline pattern”.
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 constitute mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)); 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. 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). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM
Regarding claim 1, representative of claims 5 and claim 6, SAK15 discloses
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 {see at least [0007] an object of the present invention is to provide a method for a word representation of a flow pattern, an apparatus for a word representation; [0161] This is the example of the basic processing performed by the word representation apparatus 100 according to the embodiment. By forming a word representation as described above, it can be used for a method of optimizing structure designing. For example, the word representation apparatus 100 stores, according to the algorithm A, a group of word representations defining all flow patterns that can be applied to a structure in the word representation file 106c and represents, according to the algorithm B, to which flow pattern the simulation result corresponds by a word representation. [0161] This is the example of the basic processing performed by the word representation apparatus 100 according to the embodiment. By forming a word representation as described above…} Word representation generator interpreted as forming a word representation.
SAK15 does not disclose, however SAK18 discloses:
the word representation generation unit comprises a rout determining means, a tree representation construction means, and a COT representation generation means, {page 381, last paragraph] In Section 3 we show that it is possible to assign a unique tree representation and its associated regular expression to every streamline topology of a structurally stable Hamiltonian vector field. [page 385, last paragraph] We construct a unique rooted, labelled and directed plane tree TW = (V, E) associated with W as follows. We choose the root vertex as the outermost connected component in C, to which the label +∅ (resp. −∅) is assigned when the component contains periodic orbits going in the counterclockwise (resp. clockwise) direction. [Page 387 first paragraph] The vertices with the same label +0 (or −0) are arranged uniquely in cyclic order …. For the connected components symbolized yj for j = 1, ... , k in Fig. 3, the order is introduced in cyclic order}
the root determining means determines the root of a given flow pattern; {[page 385, last paragraph] We construct a unique rooted, labelled and directed plane tree TW = (V, E) associated with W as follows. We choose the root vertex as the outermost connected component in C, to which the label +∅ (resp. −∅) is assigned when the component contains periodic orbits going in the counterclockwise (resp. clockwise) direction } determining the root of a given flow pattern interpreted as choosing the root vertex.
the tree representation construction means extracts 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 constructs the 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 the COT representation generation means converts the tree representation constructed by the tree representation constructing means into a COT representation to generate a word representation of the given flow pattern; . {see at least [page 385 last paragraph] We construct a unique rooted, labelled and directed plane tree TW = (V, E) associated with W as follows. [page 386 last paragraph] First of all, for all v ∈ V, we first arrange the vertices in Γ (v) according to the order (2.1). The vertices with the same label +0 (or −0) are arranged uniquely in cyclic order owing to #Γ+0 (v) and #Γ−0 (v) 2. On the other hand, since there contains arbitrary positive number of vertices in Γ+2 (v) and Γ−2 (v), we determine the order between them in the following manner. For the connected components symbolized yj for j = 1, ... , k in Fig. 3, the order is introduced in cyclic order. That is to say, choosing a connected component freely amongst them, which is symbolized as y1, we pick up the other connected components in counterclockwise direction. Regarding the connected components symbolized as zj for j = 1, ... , l in Fig. 3, they are just arranged in the counterclockwise direction from the left. Based on the order of the vertices in Γ (v), we describe the algorithm draw_O_tree(v) to draw the local tree structure in the plane for a vertex v with periodic orbits in Algorithm 1.} Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the specification [“partially cyclically ordered rooted tree representation" (hereinafter, referred to as a "COT representation”] we interpret the conversion to a COT representation as a tree representation for which connected components are in cyclic order.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15 with SAK18. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of cyclically ordered trees canonical form which preserves directionality, proximity and semantic grouping better than non-cyclic (linear) representation and enables more efficient comparison, indexing and compression. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, SAK15 evidently discloses methods to perform association of a flow pattern with a word representation. SAK18 is merely relied upon to illustrate the process of conversion that addresses a broader class and offers an association that is one-to-one between pattern and word. As best understood by Examiner, since establishing the correspondence between a pattern and a word representation and doing it using an algorithm that forms the cyclic ordered tree are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15 and SAK18 would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15 in view of SAK18.
SAK15, SAK18 does not disclose, however SIM discloses:
wherein a flow constituting the flow pattern includes a flow generated by moving physical boundaries { {[0067] … Any anatomical information may be identified, such as identifying cardiac structure associated with a particular view of a heart, a heart valve, a heart wall, a chamber, a canonical view, a tissue structure, a flow pattern, or combinations thereof.} In broadest reasonable interpretation flow generated by moving physical boundaries interpreted as the flow generated by the heart, the physical boundaries being the heart walls.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18 with SIM. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of extending the modeling to a diversity of real world applications in which physical boundaries are moving, from navigation locks to syringes, from industrial pumps to organ pumps like the heart, etc. Both SAK15/SAK18 and SIM deal with flow patterns. Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18 and SIM would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SIM.
Regarding claim 3, SAK15, SAK18, SIM discloses the limitations of claim 1. SIM discloses:
wherein the flow pattern is a pattern of intraventricular blood flow.{ {US 20070055153 A1 {[0067] … Any anatomical information may be identified, such as identifying cardiac structure associated with a particular view of a heart, a heart valve, a heart wall, a chamber, a canonical view, a tissue structure, a flow pattern, or combinations thereof.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SIM with further teaching of SIM. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of extending the modeling a very important category of flow, which is the flow of blood in the body, in particular in the heart as heart diseases are at the top of affections and causes of death, and yet the interpretation of blood flow requires intuitive representations for diagnostic. Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SIM and further elements of SIM would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SIM.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM, in further view of Noack et al, Optimal mixing in circulation zones, Physics of fluids, Vol 16, Number 4, 2004, hereinafter NOA.
Re claim 2 SAK15/SAK18/SIM does not disclose, however NOA discloses:
wherein the streamline structure constituting the flow pattern includes the root structure on a surface with an n-bundled ss-saddle degenerated singular point. { FIG. 1. Streamlines for the saddle point (top) the four vortices (middle) and the resulting flow (bottom). The four vortices are indicated by solid circles.} Fig 1 below was rotated by 90 degrees – top is now left, bottom is right.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification which defines the "n-bundled source-sink- saddle" (or n-bundled ss-saddle) as the degenerate singular point formed by degenerating the centers and saddles to one point this is a notation for a flow pattern which for n =1 (the definition is for n>=) is as shown in Fig 1 above from NOA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SIM with NOA. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of using the word representation on flow structures, that include simple basic structures like the saddle with 4 centers in separated space, and considering the ensemble as one ‘primitive’ as the purpose of representation is to provide a compact representation of the flow. Both SAK15/SAK18/SIM and NOA are in the field of mathematical representation of flows. Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SIM and NOA would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SIM in further view of NOA
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Sakajo, T. and Yokohama, T. US 20150248377, hereinafter SAK15, in view of Sakajo Takashi and Yokoyama Tomoo, 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, hereinafter SAK18, in further view of Simopoulos et al , US 20070055153 A1 , hereinafter SIM in further view of Helman et al Representation and display of vector field topology in fluid flow data sets, Computer, Vol 22, Issue 8. 1989, hereinafter HEL
Re Claim 4 SAK15, SAK18 SIM does not disclose, however HEL discloses:
further comprising a display unit for displaying a topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern. { Title “Representation and display of vector field topology in fluid flow data sets “ Fig 7-11},
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of SAK15/SAK18/SIM with HEL. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain have the advantage of allowing humans to visualize the results of topological structure for further analysis and interpretation. Both SAK15/SAK18/SIM and HEL are in the field of mathematical representation of flows. Combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by SAK15/SAK18/SIM and HEL would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over SAK15/SAK18/SIM in further view of HEL
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Verma, et al, A Flow-guided Streamline Seeding Strategy, Proceedings Visualization 2000. VIS 2000 (Cat. No.00CH37145), 2000
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