DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Applicant has claimed priority for this application to PCT/CN2022/084748 with a filing date of 04/01/2022 and CN202210221022.5 with filing date 03/09/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The specification makes reference to the following document which has not been considered by the examiner: Zhan Lei, A Study on Non-steady Flow Space-time LU-SGS Time Spectrum Method [D]. Xi'an, Northwest University of Technology, 2015.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of the specification as below and is encouraged to re-evaluate the instant application per the requirements:
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). 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. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: similar to those referenced in the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. For brevity, please refer to the claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of this office action, as the specification largely mirrors the claim language and incorporates many of the same deficiencies.
Furthermore, the specification fails to include paragraph numbering to identify each paragraph. Per MPEP 608.01, “Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered. Paragraph or section headers (titles), whether abutting the left margin or centered on the page, are not considered paragraphs and should not be numbered.”. Appropriate correction is required to include proper numbering of paragraphs.
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 it contains grammatical errors that are not written in appropriate English such as:
“if the computation converges but not completes”
“jumping to the step that initializing the flow field”
“jumping to the step that solving the flow-governing equations”.
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).
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination because the drawings are unclear so as to read the text therein. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Furthermore, the claims fail to comply with appropriate formatting. In particular, each claim should begin with a capital letter and end in a period. See MPEP 608.01(m)- Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). 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, 37 CFR 1.75(i). The claims of the instant applicant have several instances noticed by the examiner where the beginning letter of a claim is not capitalized and wherein words are capitalized throughout the claims inappropriately. The claims should further be formatted such that: 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. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p). The instant claims appear to rely on the use of semicolons and a labeling scheme for steps to distinguish between elements and steps but do not rely on the use of indentation as required by proper formatting rules of the MPEP.
Furthermore the formatting of the claims recite redundant or unnecessary language which make the claims difficult to comprehend. The specification appears to mirror much of the language within the claims and does not provide clarity. As examples, the fragmented limitations following the labeling of each step does not appear to clearly set forth the claimed invention and introduces verbose language that fails to positively and clearly recite the claimed invention:
step 1-1: reading-in data;…
step 1-2: obtaining components of Chebyshev transformation matrix;…
step 1-3: initializing flow field;…
step 2-3: residual estimation;…
step 2-4: time integration;…
…etc.- please refer to the claims for other instances of similar formatting.
It would be proper to instead draft the claims in a manner that clearly reflects the claimed invention in clear and concise terms, for example such as instead reciting:
reading in data, comprising reading in coordinates of each vertex…
obtaining components of Chebyshev transformation matrix by computing Chebyshev transformation matrix based on…
…etc. Additional examples are not given for brevity.
The equations within the claims and their respective descriptions are objected to because what appears to be a lowercase l (L) and the digit 1 (one) are indistinguishable throughout the claim, per the font used in the document. Appropriate correction is required to ensure clarity and understanding of the claims.
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.
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 limitation "the computation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no computation had been previously introduced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the conservative variables" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow-governing equations" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the residual term" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the correction of conservation variables" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current iteration step" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as an iterative process is not clearly set forth.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parallel computation" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 references multiple computations such as: “computing Chebyshev transformation matrix”, “computing grid cell parameters”, and “computing the correction of conservation variables” and it is unclear which computation is parallelized.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" in line 30 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).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the computation" in line 36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 references multiple computations such as: “computing Chebyshev transformation matrix”, “computing grid cell parameters”, “computing the correction of conservation variables”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the computation results" in lines 37-38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 references multiple computations such as: “computing Chebyshev transformation matrix”, “computing grid cell parameters”, and “computing the correction of conservation variables”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the maximum 2-norm" in lines 30-31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the next iteration" in lines 34-35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1 from which they depend and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 6 is assumed to incorporate the content of claim 1 though the claim is not clearly written as such, although does rely upon matter disclosed in claim 1 such that it appears claim 6 would incorporate the deficiencies.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the wall boundary" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the boundary virtual grid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the limitation lacks clarity on intended meaning. It appears that a word or multiple words may be missing from the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the physical meaning" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "can be" in line 10 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).
The term “right-hand-side terms of equation (1)” in claim 5 on lines 17-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms included in the right hand side of the equation 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. Applicant is advised to particularly point out which part of the terms on the right hand side of the equation are included for this claim limitation to ensure clarity and definiteness of the matter being claimed- for example, it is unclear if the right hand side terms are referring to all terms to the right of the equal sign in the equation or something otherwise.
The term “left-hand-side term” in claim 5 on lines 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term included in the left hand side of the equation 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. Applicant is advised to particularly point out which term on the left hand side of the equation are included for this claim limitation to ensure clarity and definiteness of the matter being claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "can be" in line 23 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).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "LU-SGS" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Though the acronym is described in the specification as being disclosed by a document in page 1, there appear to be no definitions as to what the acronym stands for and therefore the claimed matter is not clear or definite.
Claim 5 recites two instances of “step 2-4” in lines 19 and 22. It is unclear if the step comprises all of the steps described or if the steps may be alternative or distinct to one another.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “if so, 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation variables over ;” which appears to be an incomplete claim limitation. It is unclear what is being claimed. Per the specification, it appears that the claimed limitation intends to recite “…variables over the grid cells”. However, because the limitation is not claimed explicitly, the claim fails to be definite.
The term “newly-added” in claim 6 in lines 11 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “newly-added” 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. Adding of cells appears to occur in step 3-3 of claim 6 and within the specification but it is unclear what newly-added in the claim is particularly referring to.
The term “most upstream” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most upstream” 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. It is unclear what upstream is particularly referring to and quantifying a value as the most upstream is a relative relationship from which the structure is unclear.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “according to their conservation variables”. It is unclear what “their” is particularly referring to- that is to say it is unclear which element “their” is associated with. For purposes of this examination, examiner has interpreted “their” to reference the boundary cells of the viscous domain.
Claim 6 recites two instances of the term “dominated” which appears to be a relative term by which the specification does not appear to provide a definite degree by which to make the assessment, rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 re-states limitations nearly identically to that recited in Claim 1, Lines 4-5 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner notes that the particular wording of claim 2 describes the subject matter more clearly than the phrasing used in claim 1, in terms of grammar but that the substance of each claim describes the same limits of the claim. Examiner recommends revising claim 1 to incorporate the wording of claim 2 and cancelling claim 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not make reference to the independent claim 1 from which it appears to depend from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Given the indefiniteness issues cited above and that the specification largely mirrors the language of the claims and does not provide further clarity as to the claimed invention, proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims is not possible. Per MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”. Accordingly, the current set of claims has not yet been evaluated against the prior art.
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 1 - 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 2 - 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.
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.
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 further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6 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:
step 1-2: obtaining components of Chebyshev transformation matrix: computing Chebyshev transformation matrix based on the number of physical time layers, thereby obtaining the components of Chebyshev transformation matrix; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the number of physical time layers to compute a Chebyshev transformation matrix to determine results. 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.
step 1-3: initializing flow field: computing grid cell parameters and assigning initial values to the conservative variables of all grid cells on the physical time layers; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating appropriate grid cell parameters and making a judgment as to the initial values to conservative values based on an evaluation of the physical time layers. 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.
Initializing the flow field from freestream condition or from specified flow field; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating freestream condition or specified flow field to make a judgment for the initial state of the flow field. 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 1-4: establishing a dynamic computational domain based on the initialization of the flow field; establishing an advective dynamic computational domain and a viscous dynamic computational 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.
step 2: Solving the flow-governing equations of all time layers simultaneously in the dynamic computational domains; 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.
step 2-2: treating boundary conditions;The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgment as to appropriate boundary conditions for the application. 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 2-3: residual estimation; Estimating the residual term of a flow-governing equations in the advective dynamic domain of each physical time layer;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.
step 2-4: time integration; In the advective dynamic domain of each physical time layer, computing the correction of conservation variables of a current time layer in the current iteration step; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a current time layer to make a judgement of the correction of conservation 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.
step 3: updating the dynamic computational domain;The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the current state of the computational domain and making a judgment to modify the domain accordingly. 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 3-1: extending the advective dynamic domain; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail extending the advective domain. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may entail making the domain larger. 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 draw a specified domain and subsequently modify the drawing such that the domain is extended. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
step 3-2: contracting the advective dynamic domain;The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail contracting the advective domain. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may entail making the domain smaller. 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 draw a specified domain and subsequently modify the drawing such that the domain is contracted. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
step 3-3: extending the viscous dynamic domain. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail extending the viscous domain. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may entail making the domain larger. 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 draw a specified domain and subsequently modify the drawing such that the domain is extended. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
step 3-4: contracting the viscous dynamic domain; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail contracting the viscous domain. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim may entail making the domain smaller. 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 draw a specified domain and subsequently modify the drawing such that the domain is contracted. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
step 4: judging whether the parallel computation in the current time period converges; Whether the iteration of the current time period converges can be judged in terms of the maximum 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation variables over all grid cells in the dynamic computational domain of all time layers; if the maximum 2-norm is lower than or equal to a preassigned threshold, which means that the iteration of the current time period converges, entering step 5, and if not, entering step 2 and performing the next iteration of the current time period; 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.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
step 1: initializing the computation;- 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.
step 1-1: reading-in data: reading-in coordinates of each vertex and boundary conditions of a grid, final-state time, number of physical time periods and physical time layers;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
step 2-1: allocating memory;- 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.
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:
step 1-1: reading-in data: reading-in coordinates of each vertex and boundary conditions of a grid, final-state time, number of physical time periods and physical time layers;– This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim includes retrieving information in memory or receiving data over a network. The courts have found both of these computer functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a merely generic manner, such as in this 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)) and Field of Use, as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment 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.
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 does not recite any further judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein the read-in data in step 1-1 further comprising coordinates of each vertex of the grid, grid boundary conditions, final state time, number of physical time periods and physical time layers. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to 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 the Chebyshev transformation matrix in step 1-2 is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
89
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Δt is the physical time step, Q and
Q
-
1
are Chebyshev transformation pair, and M is an operator that converts Chebyshev coefficient of the conservation variables into the Chebyshev coefficient of first-order time derivative of the conservation variables, which can reasonably be read to entail a mathematical formula describing the transformation matrix used as part of the computation described in claim 1. 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 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 when initializing according to incoming flow condition, establishing the advective dynamic domain and the viscous dynamic domain of 1-Nc time layers according to the wall boundary, and when initializing according to the specified flow field, establishing the advective dynamic domain and viscous dynamic domain of 1-Nc time layers according to the conservation variables of the specified flow field. which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the wall boundary so as to inform a judgement as to how to establish the advective domain. Further this claim can be read to also entail evaluating the conservation variables of the specified flow field so as to inform a judgement as to how to establish the advective 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.
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 limitations:
assigning a value to the conservation variables of the boundary virtual grid based on the read-in grid boundary conditions, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating grid boundary conditions so as to inform a judgement as to the value of conservation 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.
determining the number of layers of the virtual grid according to a reconstruction format, assigning a value to the conservation variables of the virtual grid cell according to the physical meaning of the boundary conditions, thereby obtaining corresponding parameters of the boundary conditions of the dynamic computational domain; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a reconstruction format so as to inform a determination of the number of layers in a virtual grid. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The remaining limitations of the claim can be read to entail evaluating the physical meaning of boundary conditions so as to inform a judgement on the assignment of values to the conservation 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.
the residual estimation in step 2-3, comprising: The flow-governing equations before temporal discretization can be written by:
PNG
media_image2.png
98
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(1) wherein
W
1
is the conservation variables of the lth time layer and
1
≤
l
≤
N
c
, t is time,
|
Ω
|
,
N
f
, and ΔS respectively are volume of the grid cell, number of cell surfaces and area of the cell surface, Fc represents the convective flux, Fv represents the viscous flux,
C
l
,
n
represents the component of Chebyshev transformation matrix, and
Q
T
represents the source term of turbulence model equation, wherein the residual estimation is the righthand- side terms of equation (1); which can reasonably be read to entail the detailing of the flow governing equations, which is the explicit recitation of a mathematical formula. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
step 2-4: time integration; In the advective dynamic domain of each physical time layer, computing the corrections of the conservation variables of the current time layer in the current iteration step; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating each physical time layer to make a judgement as to the corrections of conservation 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, because the claim recites a mathematical calculation, the claim further includes the judicial exception of abstract ideas as mathematical concepts.
Step 2-4 comprising: Discretizing the left-hand-side term by an implicit temporal scheme, equation (1) can be expressed as:
PNG
media_image3.png
85
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein
Δ
W
n
and
R
n
respectively are correction and residual of the conservation variables in the 1st layer in the current iteration step, and Δt is the time step, wherein superscript (1) representing 1th time layer is omitted from the above control equation, wherein the solving process is further divided into two steps by using implicit LU-SGS scheme, including a forward sweep and a backward sweep, which is expressed as:
PNG
media_image4.png
96
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the coefficient matrices L, U and D of LU-SGS method are expressed as:
PNG
media_image5.png
304
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein
Δ
W
*
is process variable of LU-SGS method, ω is over-relaxation factor;
Λ
c
is spectral radius of the Jacobian matrix of the convective flux A, over a cell,
Λ
v
is spectral radius of Jacobian matrix of viscous flux over a cell; I, J and K , are grid directions,
Λ
c
i
is spectral radius of Jacobian matrix of convective flux along the Ne grid direction i (i=I, J, K), and
Λ
v
i
is spectral radius of Jacobian matrix of viscous flux along grid direction i, wherein superscript (l) representing the lth time layer is omitted from the above control equation, wherein subscript i-1 is cell with label number reduced by 1 in the grid direction i of the current cell, and subscript i+ 1 is the cell with the label number increased by l in the grid direction i of the current cell, wherein subscript i-1/2 is surface shared by current cell and cell i+l, and
Δ
S
1
-
l
2
is area of the surface, wherein subscript i+ l/2 is surface shared by the current cell and cell i+ l, and
Δ
S
1
+
l
2
is area of the surface, wherein
C
1,1
is the principal diagonal component of the Chebyshev transformation matrix, wherein in equation (2), to achieve time parallelism, only
C
1,1
is remained as component relevant to the Chebyshev transformation matrix in matrix D. which can reasonably be read to entail the details of dictating equations and are further recitations of mathematical formulas and calculations. 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 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, 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 6 additionally recites the limitations:
step 3-1: extending the advective dynamic domain; going through all of the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain, and determining whether the boundary cells are disturbed according to 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation variables over the grid cells; if so, 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation variables over;, which can reasonably be read to entail observing the boundary cells of the advective domain and making a judgment as to whether the boundary cells are disturbed according to the 2-norm of the corrections of the conservation 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.
step 3-2: contracting the advective dynamic domain; removing the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain from the advective dynamic domain if the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain meet the following conditions: there 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; removing the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain from the viscous dynamic domain if the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain also belong to the viscous dynamic domain;, which can reasonably be read to entail observing the boundary cells of the advective dynamic domain according to conditions and removing boundary cells if the conditions are met. 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 3-3: extending the viscous dynamic domain; going through all of the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain, and determining whether the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain are disturbed according to their conservation variables; if so, adding all of the cells adjacent to the disturbed boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain into the viscous dynamic domain; which can reasonably be read to entail observing the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain and making a judgment as to whether the boundary cells are disturbed so as to add the cells adjacent to disturbed cells into the 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.
step 3-4: contracting the viscous dynamic domain; going through all of the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain, and removing the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain from the viscous dynamic domain if the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain meet the following conditions: there is no newly-added cells dominated by viscous effects around the cell to be removed, and the cell is no longer dominated by viscous effects. which can reasonably be read to entail observing the boundary cells of the viscous dynamic domain according to conditions and removing boundary cells if conditions are met. 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 6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113609597 A discloses a propelling disturbance domain update method for supersonic aircraft winding flow using flow control equations and a dynamic computing domain with consideration for boundary conditions.
CN 113392472 A discloses a parallel disturbance domain updating method for aircraft pneumatic characteristics in simulation with residual estimations and time integrations in a dynamic computing domain wherein convergence conditions are evaluated.
CN 111859530 A discloses an iterative propulsion perturbation domain updating method of aircraft dynamic pneumatic characteristics in simulation. The method leverages non-constant, convection, and viscous domain calculations.
CN 113850008 A discloses an adaptive grid disturbance domain update acceleration method of aircraft pneumatic characteristic prediction with consideration for improving the convergence of the result.
US 7359841 B1 discloses a method for modeling complex physical processes and is suggested to be implemented in parallel to improve over traditional analysis techniques. The method is applied to aircraft components as an example.
Zhan et al (Zhan, L., Xiong, J., Liu, F., and Xiao, Z., “Fully Implicit Chebyshev Time-Spectral Method for General Unsteady Flows”, November 2018, AIA A Journal, Volume 56, No. 11, pp 4474-4486) discloses a methodology using an implicit Chebyshev time-spectral method to solve unsteady flows.
Zhan (Zhan, L., “Time Spectral and Space-Time LU-SGS Implicit Methods for Unsteady Flow Computations”, 2015, University of California- Irvine Dissertation) discloses numerical methods for the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations with spectral discretization in time and a fast space-time coupled LU-SGS (ST-LU-SGS) method for solving the resultant implicit equations. The document makes reference to a scheme in the background discussion with suggestion for parallelism.
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