DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/08/2026 in which original claims 1-6 are cancelled and replaced with newly added claims 1-6 and presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Objections to the disclosure:
Applicant has amended the specification and notes that paragraph 0002 has been revised without altering the substantive technical disclosure and provided a new set of drawings. Applicant submits the amendments address the informal issues and further submits that the amendments comply with the applicable USPTO requirements.
The specification has been completely rewritten such that the prior objections are no longer applicable. However, the revision to the specification has introduced new matter, as set forth in this action. Further, only a clean form version of the substitute specification has been filed. A marked-up copy of the substitute specification showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record must also be submitted. (See 37 CFR 1.125(c)).
The replacement drawings are of adequate quality for examining. However, Figure 2(b) contains text that is in a non-English language, which should be corrected in a replacement drawing.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The applicant validates the inability for a proper claim interpretation set forth in the previous action and further amends the claims to ensure clarity of the claimed subject matter.
The amendments to the claims largely resolve the cited issues with the claims which rendered the claims indefinite and accordingly, the rejections under 112(b) and 112(d) have with withdrawn. However, the amendments to the claims have introduced additional issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) and are again rejected under these grounds.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has amended the claims and argues that the amendments recite a specific technical and structured computational method for determining characteristics of flight vehicles. Applicant notes that the collective steps define a numerical computation process that improves the efficiency of unsteady aerodynamic simulations and argues that the method is not a mathematical concept or mental process but a specific technological solution implemented in a computational environment for flight vehicle dynamics. Applicant argues that the claims reflect significantly more than any recited abstract idea.
Applicants arguments with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. In order for any recited abstract ideas to be integrated into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the recited exception(s), the claims(s) must include additional elements whereby the additional elements, either alone or in combination with the recited judicial exceptions, provide the inventive concept. The present claims recite a series of steps which are mathematical calculations and which may be performed in the human mind using assistive aids. The claims further recite the use of generic computing components (performing computations simultaneously, generically recited computational resources, generically recited computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor, etc.) to employ the steps of the method. Such additional elements are considered as mere instructions to apply the exception(s) in a computing environment. Claiming the improved speed or efficiency with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The applicant’s argument that the methodology improves the efficiency of unsteady aerodynamic simulations is not reflected in the claims. The claims recite the solution of flow-governing equations simultaneously and updating the dynamic computational domains based on the flow solution. The mechanisms by which simultaneous solving, presumably by a computer, occurs is not described in such a way that effectively demonstrates a particular solution to the problem. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
For the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this office action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103
The applicant submits that the claims were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103. The applicant further submits that the amended claim 1 discloses limitations not taught or suggested by cited prior art.
The claims had not yet been evaluated against the prior art and thus there were no rejections yet set forth over the prior art. In the previous action, on Page 15, the examiner stated that the degree of indefiniteness of the claims rendered a proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims not possible (see MPEP 2173.06 which explicitly states that it would not be proper to reject such claims on the basis of prior art). The applicant’s arguments presented for this aspect of the examination are factually incorrect. Nonetheless, the claims have now been evaluated against the prior art by performing a comprehensive search for the limitations of the amended claims, as stated herein this action.
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the specification to correct issues cited by the examiner in the previous action, including the abstract and the drawings. The applicant submits that no new matter has been added by way of amendment.
Multiple instances of new matter have been observed by the examiner and noted in this action. While the amendments do resolve indefiniteness issues cited previously, the amendments also introduce new matter. Accordingly, the specification remains objected to for including new matter, as discussed herein.
The amendment filed 05/08/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Specification:
[0002]
“especially under time-varying conditions. In high-Mach number flows, complex phenomena such as shock waves and laminar-turbulent transitions affect the vehicle’s stability and control.”
[0004]
“Set up the simulation by reading input data.”;
“(such as cell volumes and areas)”;
“(e.g., density, momentum, energy)”;
(such as the Navier-Stokes equations)”;
“In time integration, the corrections to the conservative variables for the current time layer in the current iteration step are computed (for example using an implicit time-marching scheme).”;
“For example, regions where new disturbances arise may be added to the domains, or regions where the flow remains steady may be removed.”;
“The 2-norm of a vector 𝑣 (of length 𝐿) is defined as √(Σ_{𝑖=1}^𝐿 (𝑣ᵢ)²).”; “(for example by increasing a time counter or index)”
[0005]
“Chebyshev transformation matrix computed in Step 1-2 is defined by the formula C = Δt · Q⁻¹ · M · Q,” Examiner notes this equation given is different than that listed in the original disclosure.
[0008]
“The above method can be implemented by a computer program or system. By solving flow equations across all time layers in parallel, the method significantly reduces overall computation time while maintaining accurate determination of flight vehicle dynamics.”
[0012]
“FIG. 4(b) shows results obtained using a conventional sequential method” Examiner notes that the original disclosure describes 4(b) as being exemplary of the present invention and not a conventional sequential method (“Figure 4b is a conceptual diagram illustrating the comparison of airfoil pressure coefficient distribution at t=3T for computing the unsteady flow around a transonic airfoil by using the 24-thread parallel computing method of the present invention.”)
[0014]
“(such as wall, inflow or outflow conditions on grid boundaries),”;
“(the number of global simulation intervals),”
“(N_c, the number of discrete time levels per period)”
[0015]
“For example, the matrix C may be defined by the relation C = Δt · Q⁻¹ · M · Q, where Δt is the simulation time step, Q is a Chebyshev transform matrix, Q⁻¹ is its inverse, and M is an operator that maps Chebyshev coefficients of the conservative variables (density, momentum, energy) to coefficients of their first-order time derivatives.” Examiner notes this equation given is different than that listed in the original disclosure and density, momentum, and energy are not described in the original spec as exemplary variables.
[0016]
“The conservative variables typically include fluid density, momentum components, and energy.”
[0017]
“For instance, if the flow is initialized from freestream conditions, the advective domain may extend inward from the wall boundary; alternatively, if initialized from a specified flow field, the advective and viscous domains may be defined for all N_c time layers using the specified flow’s conservation variables. The viscous domain generally corresponds to regions where viscous or unsteady effects (like shocks) are important, while the advective domain covers the rest of the flow region.”
[0018]
“These equations are typically the Navier-Stokes equations (including any turbulence model terms) for the flow field”
“In an embodiment, one or more “virtual” grid layers of cells are used outside the physical boundary.”
“(for example, reflecting a wall or far-field condition).”
“For example, before temporal discretization, the flow equations may be written in conservative form (Equation (1)): ∂W/∂t +
1
/
|
Ω
|
[Σ_(faces) F_c · n_i + Σ_(faces) F_v · n_i] = Q_r, (1)”
[0019]
“(such as expanding shock regions)”;
“Conversely, if certain regions are found to no longer require detailed simulation, the domains may be contracted (Steps 3-2 and 3-4)” The original disclosure does describe the domains being contracted in steps 3-2 and 3-4 but does not describe such steps occurring when detailed simulation is not required. The disclosure states that such steps are performed if conditions are met, whereon the conditions include: here is no newly-added inviscid disturbed cells around the cell to be removed, the cell is converged, the cell is located at the most upstream, the cell does not affect the computation of other cells in the advective dynamic domain and are no longer affected by other cells in the advective dynamic domain; or if the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain also belong to the viscous dynamic domain;
“The update criterion can be based on monitoring changes in the flow field or error estimates, as appropriate for the simulation.”
[0020]
“The 2-norm is defined as the Euclidean norm: for a vector v of values, |v|₂ = sqrt(v₁² + v₂² + ... + v_L²).”
[0021]
“method outputs the final computed dynamic characteristics (such as pressure fields, forces, etc.).”
[0022]
“The above method can be implemented using conventional computer hardware. For example, the steps may be carried out by one or more processors executing software instructions that implement each step.”
Abstract
“(e.g. Navier-Stokes)”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The replacement drawing for Figure 2(b) contains text that is not written in English. Per 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii), the application must be in the English language.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The description of drawings for Figure 2 in [0010] does not appear to correspond to the provided drawings. The provided replacement drawings contain a Figure 2(a) and a Figure 2(b) which do not appear to contain the matter described in the description of drawings of the specification. The description of drawings should cover both components Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b) and accurately describe what is contained therein. From the original specification, it appears that the applicant intended to describe the figure(s) as being “Figure 2a is a conceptual diagram illustrating the conventional method advancing in the time sequence; Figure 2b is a conceptual diagram illustrating the time-parallel method of the present invention.” and not as-written in the presently amended specification (“[0010] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a computational grid and its partitioning into an advective dynamic domain and a viscous dynamic domain, as used in the method of FIG. 1.” )
The numbered paragraphs do not actually appear to correspond with the distinct paragraphs of the specification. For example, paragraph 4 includes distinctly 6 paragraphs within the numbered paragraph 4. This numbering scheme creates confusion when trying to reference particularly-numbered paragraphs of the specification. Each paragraph should contain its own corresponding paragraph number.
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The amended specification exceeds the length range per the guidelines given above and further refers to purported merits of the invention (“This parallel-in-time update method improves computational efficiency in predicting flight vehicle dynamics.”) which is against the guidance given above.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The form of claims should be the following, per 37 C.F.R. 1.75: “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. Both claims 3 and 4 set forth a plurality of steps which are delineated by the use of semicolons. The claims should further have each step of the claim as being separated by a line indentation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites a mathematical equation (C = Δt · Q⁻¹ · M · Q) which was not present in the originally filed disclosure and therefore includes new matter.
Claim 6 recites “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor to perform a method comprising the steps of claim 1”, wherein a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor was not included in the original disclosure and therefore includes new matter.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the computation” on line 3 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “the coordinates” in line 4 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “the boundary conditions” in lines 4-5 which lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" in the limitation (such as cell volume and face areas)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the use of parentheses within a claim is primarily used to enclose reference characters and should generally be avoided elsewhere to prevent ambiguity as to what is being claimed.
Claim 1 recites “the flow variables” in line 16. It is unclear if the claim limitation is referring to “conservative flow variables” as introduced previously in the claim or some other flow variables.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" in “(for example by solving the discretized flow equations with an implicit scheme)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the use of parentheses within a claim is primarily used to enclose reference characters and should generally be avoided elsewhere to prevent ambiguity as to what is being claimed.
The term “as appropriate” in line 25 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The extending or contracting of the advective and viscous dynamic domains is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “as appropriate”.
Claim 1 recites “(if convergence is not reached or final time not reached)” which is enclosed in parenthesis. The use of parentheses within a claim is primarily used to enclose reference characters and should generally be avoided elsewhere to prevent ambiguity as to what is being claimed.
Claim 1 recites “and repeating from step (a)(iii)”. It is unclear what “repeating from” actually entails. That is to say- it is unclear as to which steps are being repeated “from step (a)(iii)”.
Claims 2-6 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 4 recites “(applying the boundary conditions)” which is enclosed in parenthesis. The use of parentheses within a claim is primarily used to enclose reference characters and should generally be avoided elsewhere to prevent ambiguity as to what is being claimed.
Claim 5 recites “the flow variables”. It is unclear if the claim limitation is referring to “conservative flow variables” as introduced previously in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends or some other flow variables.
Claim 6 recites “(A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium)” which is enclosed in parenthesis. The use of parentheses within a claim is primarily used to enclose reference characters and should generally be avoided elsewhere to prevent ambiguity as to what is being claimed.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
ii. computing a Chebyshev transformation matrix based on the number of physical time layers, thereby obtaining components of the Chebyshev transformation matrix; evaluating the number of physical time layers to compute a Chebyshev transformation matrix to determine results as components of the transformation matrix. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the Chebyshev transformation matrix is the recitation of a mathematical calculation; and, as such the claim further includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
iii. initializing the flow field by computing parameters of each grid cell (such as cell volume and face areas) and assigning initial values to conservative flow variables of all grid cells on each physical time layer; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating grid cell parameters and making a judgment as to the initial values to conservative values for all grid cells for each time layer. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, because the claim recites the computation of a cell volume and a face area the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of mathematical calculations which is a mathematical concept.
iv. establishing dynamic computational domains based on the initialized flow field, including defining an advective dynamic domain and a viscous dynamic domain; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the initial state of the flow field to determine an advective dynamic computation domain and viscous dynamic computational domain. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
(b) solving flow-governing equations of all time layers [[…]]in the dynamic computational domains by: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating flow governing equations. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The recitation of the word “simultaneously” implies the use of a computer to solve the equations. However, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) "Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer." and therefore the claim still recites a mental process. Furthermore, this claim includes the recitation of mathematical calculations of flow governing equations. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
ii. applying the boundary conditions by assigning values to conservation variables at grid boundaries according to the read-in boundary conditions; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment for the conservation variables at grid boundaries according to evaluations of the boundary conditions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
iii. estimating a residual term of the flow-governing equations for each physical time layer in the advective dynamic domain; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating flow governing equations to make a judgment on an estimated residual term. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because the claim recites the mathematical calculation of estimating a residual term of an equation, the claim further includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
iv. performing time integration to compute corrections to the conservative variables of the current time layer in a current iteration step (for example by solving the discretized flow equations with an implicit scheme); The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing integration over a period of time and making an evaluation of such integral so as to make a determination of correction factors for the conservative variables. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the claim also recites performing a time integration and solving discretized flow equations which is further the recitation of abstract ideas of mathematical calculations which is a mathematical concept.
(c) updating the dynamic computational domains by extending or contracting the advective and viscous dynamic domains as appropriate based on the flow solution; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to how to modify the computational domains according to evaluations of the flow solutions. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example a human being can evaluate the flow solution and make a determination to make larger or smaller the dynamic domains. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
(d) judging whether the computation has converged for the current time period by calculating a maximum 2-norm of the corrections of the conservative variables over all grid cells in the dynamic domains of all time layers and comparing the maximum 2-norm to a predefined threshold; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to if the computation result is convergent based on the maximum 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation variables to further evaluate which subsequent step to perform. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because this claim includes the recitation of mathematical relationships of numeric values (as a maximum of a value evaluated against a threshold) and the mathematical calculation of a 2-norm, and therefore the claim additionally includes the recitation of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
(e) if the maximum 2-norm is less than or equal to the threshold, judging whether the current time has reached the final-state simulation time, and if so, [[…]] otherwise (if convergence is not reached or final time not reached), proceeding to the next time period and repeating from step (a)(iii). The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to whether the maximum 2-norm is less than, equal to, or greater than a given threshold. This comparison may be performed practically in the human mind. The repetition of steps can likewise be practically performed in the human mind, as given above. Furthermore, the comparison of a given value to a threshold is the recitation of mathematical relationships between two numbers. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
(a) initializing the computation, including This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to implement the abstract idea.
i. reading-in data comprising the coordinates of each vertex of a spatial grid, the boundary conditions of the grid, a final-state simulation time, a number of physical time periods, and a number of physical time layers (Nc);- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
simultaneously- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components to implement the recited exception(s)
i. allocating computational resources for the flow variables;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computers to implement the abstract idea.
outputting the computation results and ending the method- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
i. reading-in data comprising the coordinates of each vertex of a spatial grid, the boundary conditions of the grid, a final-state simulation time, a number of physical time periods, and a number of physical time layers (Nc); – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as given previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, reading-in data encompasses the retrieval of information from memory (as described in MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93") . The courts have found such a computer function to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim.
outputting the computation results and ending the method – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data outputting. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, outputting results encompasses the transmission of data over a network (as described in MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);). The courts have found such a computer function to be well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in the claim.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6:
Step 1: Claim 6 is directed to a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception(s) by the reference made to perform a method comprising the steps of claim 1. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept and mental process. See rejection of claim 1 for comprehensive evaluation of the limitations contained therein.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
(A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium) storing instructions executable by a processor to - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as tools to perform the steps of the abstract idea(s).
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Additional elements identified previously and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) . The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception(s) does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction to enable the performance of a task (to include mathematical calculations) that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid and. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein the Chebyshev transformation matrix computed in step (a)(ii) is defined by C = Δt · Q⁻¹ · M · Q, wherein Δt is a physical time step, Q and Q⁻¹ are a Chebyshev transformation matrix pair, and M is an operator that converts a Chebyshev coefficient of the conservation variables into a Chebyshev coefficient of the first-order time derivative of the conservation variables, which can reasonably be read to entail a mathematical formula. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein in step (a)(iv) establishing the dynamic computational domains comprises: if initializing the flow field from an incoming freestream condition, establishing the advective dynamic domain from a wall boundary of the spatial grid; and if initializing the flow field from a specified flow field, establishing the advective dynamic domain and the viscous dynamic domain of each of the Nc physical time layers based on the conservation variables of the specified flow field, which can reasonably be read to entail performing an evaluation as to the type of initialization (from incoming freestream condition or from a specified flow field) and subsequently making a judgement as to how to characterize the dynamic domains. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein step (b)(ii) (applying the boundary conditions) comprises: assigning a value to the conservation variables of one or more boundary virtual grid layers based on the read-in grid boundary conditions; determining the number of layers of the virtual grid according to a specified reconstruction format; assigning values to the conservation variables of each virtual grid cell based on the physical meaning of the boundary conditions; and thereby obtaining parameters for the boundary conditions of the dynamic computational domains which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the boundary conditions so as to make a judgement as to how to characterize the conservation variable values, making a subsequent judgement as to the number of layers for a virtualized grid according to a given format, and finally making a further evaluation of the physical meaning of the boundary conditions so as to make a judgement as to the appropriate values for the conservation variables to derive corresponding parameters from such evaluations and judgements. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein the time integration in step (b)(iv) uses an implicit time-marching scheme comprising an implicit Lower-Upper Symmetric Gauss-Seidel (LU-SGS) algorithm with a forward sweep and a backward sweep to solve the discretized flow equations and update the flow variables. which can reasonably be read to entail executing the steps of LU-SGS algorithm in a forward and backward manner so as to solve discretized flow equations. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, the recitation of solving discretized flow equations is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim limitation further includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as amended to overcome the outstanding rejections as set forth in this office action including under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A complete prior art search has been performed for the claims; however, the search did not reveal prior art that covers all the features in the claims. Specifically, independent claim(s) are considered allowable over the prior art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims.
The closest prior art of record includes:
CN 113392472 A discloses a parallel disturbance domain update method for aircraft aerodynamic simulations. The methodology discloses allocating storage and reading in data including grid coordinate information, boundary conditions and calculation settings for the simulation. Further, the reference discloses initialization of the flow field through parallel threading wherein initial values are assigned to cells of the flow field, the establishment of a dynamic computational domain including a convection and viscous domain, the allocation of storage space for update-related variables of the flow simulation, boundary condition processing, residual estimation of the flow control equations, performance of time integration in parallel, update of the computational domain, and evaluation of if the solution has converged to a specified convergence condition according to a 2-norm maximum of the update amount of the conservation quantity of the converged unit. The reference does not appear to contemplate utilization of a final state simulation time, a number of time periods, a number of physical time layers or the computation of a Chebyshev transformation matrix based on the number of physical time layers.
CN110096838 A discloses a numerical parallel implicit solution method for aircraft flow that combines Jacobi and LU-SGS iterations to yield a parallel solution. The methodology establishes a flow field model by dividing a larger model into partitioned sub models and distributes the computations for parallel processing. Boundaries are applied to the partitioned model and flow computations are performed until a convergence condition is met or a specified iteration of steps is reached. The reference does not appear to contemplate the computation and utilization of a Chebyshev transformation matrix based on the number of physical time layers.
CN 111651831 A discloses a partitioned disturbance updating calculation method for aircraft simulation. The methodology discloses reading in data including grid coordinate information, boundary conditions and calculation settings for the simulation. Further, the reference discloses initialization of the flow field, the establishment of a dynamic computational domain including a convection and viscosity domain, the allocation of storage space for update-related variables of the flow simulation, boundary condition processing by assigning values of the conservation quantity to the boundary virtual grid, residual error estimation of an inviscid term and viscosity term, performance of time integration, and update of the computational domain according to evaluation of if the solution has converged and satisfies 4 distinct conditions of judgement. The reference does not appear to contemplate utilization of a final state simulation time, a number of physical time layers or the computation of a Chebyshev transformation matrix based on the number of physical time layers.
Zhan, L., “Time Spectral and Space-Time LU-SGS Implicit Methods for Unsteady Flow Computations”, 2015, University of California, Irvine discloses using a Chebyshev time spectral method as an efficient solution to solve non-periodic unsteady problems. The reference suggest that the LU-SGS scheme has advantages of low computational cost and moderate memory requirements as well as suggests the implementation of the scheme using parallel computers, but does not provide implementation details for parallelizing the methodology, particularly in the manner claimed.
The references alone and in combination do not provide an explicit teaching or motivation that would compel one having skill in the art to modify them in such a way to arrive at the claimed invention of the independent claims. As such, the independent claim(s) of the present application have been found allowable over the prior art. When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above noted features in the independent claims upon which they depend.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights