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 .
Examiner Aniss Chad is the new examiner of record.
This action is in response to the amendments filed 10/9/2025 and arguments filed 7/16/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2019-230997, filed on 12/23/2019 and Application No. JP2020-172750, filed on 10/13/2020.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-15 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides “a technological solution to a technological problem in the field of airflow analysis modeling,” asserting that the claimed invention enables “realistic airflow visualization” that allows “a change in local flow in the calculation results to be understood by a user in an intuitively comprehensible manner.” Applicant concludes that the claims are therefore directed to statutory subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One — The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Specifically:
The acquirer “acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution” — these distributions are the product of mathematical calculations (fluid dynamics computations using boundary conditions), constituting a mathematical concept.
The comparator “calculates a difference value” between flow-velocity vectors and “compares the difference value… with a first predetermined threshold value.” Calculating a difference and comparing it to a threshold is a mathematical calculation and a comparison/evaluation that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The generator selectively “includes” or “does not include” vectors based on the threshold comparison — this is a decision-making/data-organization step falling within mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The recitation of these calculations and comparisons, even when applied to airflow data, does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two — No Integration Into a Practical Application
Applicant’s central contention is that the claim provides an “improvement in the technological field relating to airflow analysis modeling.” This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and is not persuasive for the following reasons:
1. The claim does not improve the underlying airflow computation or modeling technology.
Applicant characterizes the invention as providing “realistic airflow visualization” and an improvement to “airflow analysis modeling.” However, the claim does not recite any improvement to how the flow-velocity distributions are computed. The flow-velocity distributions are merely acquired by the “acquirer” — the claim is silent as to any improved computational fluid dynamics technique, solver, or model. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPik, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improved mathematical analysis of data is not an improvement to technology). The alleged improvement lies entirely in the selection and presentation of data (filtering out vectors below a threshold).
2. Presenting data in an “intuitively comprehensible manner” is not a technological improvement.
Applicant’s argument that the invention allows a change in local flow to “be understood by a user in an intuitively comprehensible manner” describes an improvement to the user’s mental comprehension, not an improvement to a computer or technology. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that merely presenting the results of an abstract process on a display, or making information easier for a human to understand, does not confer eligibility. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”). Displaying vectors that exceed a threshold is precisely this type of result-presentation.
3. The recited hardware elements are generic and used as tools.
The claim recites a “terminal device,” “information processing device,” and “display device.” These are generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and invoked merely as tools to perform the abstract idea and to display its results. Under MPEP § 2106.05(f), the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The “display device” that displays flow information does no more than output the results of the abstract calculation on a generic display.
4. The threshold-based filtering is data manipulation, not a technical solution.
The core of the claim — including a vector when the difference value ≥ threshold and excluding it when < threshold — is a rule for organizing and filtering data based on a mathematical comparison. This is analogous to the data collection, analysis, and display found ineligible in Electric Power Group. Filtering data based on a threshold is a longstanding technique of information selection and does not amount to a technical improvement.
Step 2B — No Inventive Concept / “Significantly More”
The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself:
Receiving boundary conditions from a terminal device, acquiring data, calculating differences, comparing to a threshold, and displaying results are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Receiving and transmitting data over a network and displaying data on a display are recognized as conventional computer functions.
The ordered combination of generic acquirer/comparator/generator/display simply performs the abstract idea using generic components performing their generic functions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Conclusion
The claim, taken as a whole, is directed to the abstract ideas of mathematical calculation and comparison combined with the presentation of data, without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 3–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“acquirer” recited in claims 1 and 7
“comparator” recited in claims 1, 4-5, and 7-9
“generator” recited in claims 1, 6, and 9-12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specification at paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0052] discloses “acquiring unit,” “comparing unit” and “generating unit” for performing the functions of the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator,” respectively. Therefore, the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator” are interpreted as “acquiring unit,” “comparing unit” and “generating unit,” respectively. Furthermore, specification at paragraph [0042] recites: “The acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123 used may be, for example, a processor (not illustrated) and a memory (not illustrated) having instructions stored therein. Alternatively, the acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123 used may be a dedicated electronic circuit. The dedicated electronic circuit may be a single semiconductor integrated circuit, or may be separate electronic circuits among the acquiring unit 121, the comparing unit 122, and the generating unit 123.” Therefore, the “acquirer,” “comparator” and “generator” are interpreted as any devices discussed above, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-12 are directed to a device, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claims 15 is directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1, 3-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
acquiring a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid, the distributions being calculated using respective boundary conditions;
calculating, for each region, a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector and a second flow-velocity vector;
comparing the calculated difference value with a first predetermined threshold value; and
including or not including the flow-velocity vectors in generated flow information based on whether the difference value is larger than or equal to, or smaller than, the threshold value.
Calculating a difference value between numerical vectors and comparing that value to a threshold are mathematical calculations and comparisons performed on numerical representations of fluid flow. Additionally, evaluating whether a value meets a threshold and then selecting which data to include or omit are evaluation and judgment steps that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper at the level of generality claimed. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 1 — the “information processing device,” “acquirer,” “terminal device,” “comparator,” “generator,” and “display device” — are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke generic computing components to receive data, process data, filter data, and display data. These components are used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Displaying the generated flow information merely presents the result of the mathematical analysis and constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The claim does not recite an improvement to computer functionality, an improved computational fluid dynamics technique, an improvement to display technology, or any control of a physical system. The claim therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions — receiving input, acquiring data, calculating and comparing numerical values, selecting data for output, and displaying data. The ordered combination merely applies the abstract idea using generic components. Claim 1 therefore does not recite an inventive concept and is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 3:
The limitations of claim 3 under broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts; and/or a mental process as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See the analysis for claim 1 for a detailed analysis.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4:
The limitation “calculates the difference value based on magnitude of a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Calculating a difference between values covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5:
The limitation “calculates the difference value based on a difference between magnitude of the first flow-velocity vector and magnitude of the second flow-velocity vector” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Calculating a difference between values covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
The limitation “wherein if the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space, … generates … a difference vector between the first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector as third flow information” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Generating a difference vector amounts to calculating a difference between values which covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas and a mental process of mentally making an evaluation.
The limitations “the generator” and “outputs …” are additional elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “outputs …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
The limitation “sets the first predetermined threshold value based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each time point of the time sequence” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. According to claim 8 and the description of specification at paragraphs [0108], setting a predetermined threshold value amounts to someone mentally observing a difference value and selecting an appropriate threshold value among a plurality of threshold values.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the acquirer”
“acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution”
“the comparator”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “the acquirer” and “the comparator” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements “the acquirer” and “the comparator” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a time sequence of each of the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution” is a data gathering activity that falls under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
The limitation “sets the first predetermined threshold value based on a number of regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value with respect to each time point of the time sequence” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process as explained in the analysis for claim 7. See the analysis for claim 7 for a detailed analysis.
The limitation “the comparator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the comparator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “compares an age of air based on the second flow-velocity distribution with respect to each of the regions within the predetermined space with a second predetermined threshold value” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the age of air and the threshold value and making a judgment.
The limitation “generates … region information indicating a region where the age of air is larger than or equal to the second predetermined threshold value” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. Specification at paragraph [0121] discloses that a region information indicates a region having the second age-of-air higher than or equal to the predetermined threshold value. Therefore, generating a region information amounts to someone mentally observing age of air values for regions and mentally determining regions with an age of air value higher than a threshold.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the comparator”
“the generator”
“outputs …”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “the comparator” and “the generator” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “outputs …” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitation “groups second flow information about a first region and second flow information about a second region into a single piece of second flow information, the first region being included in two or more regions where the difference value is larger than or equal to the first predetermined threshold value, the second region being included in the two or more regions and being different from the first region” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, grouping information into a single piece of information covers someone mentally observing pieces of information and deciding on a grouping of the pieces of information.
The limitation “the generator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitation “groups together the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region in accordance with a distance between the first region and the second region and a difference between the second flow information about the first region and the second flow information about the second region” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, grouping information into a single piece of information covers someone mentally observing pieces of information and deciding on a grouping of the pieces of information.
The limitation “the generator” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12:
The limitation “determines whether or not a variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies a predetermined condition in a predetermined region within the predetermined space” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, this covers someone mentally observing the variation and the predetermined condition and making a judgment.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“the generator”
“wherein if the generator determines that the variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies the predetermined condition, the generator outputs at least one of the first flow information or the second flow information”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the generator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer as explained in the analysis for claim 1. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “wherein if the generator determines that the variation between the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution satisfies the predetermined condition, the generator outputs at least one of the first flow information or the second flow information” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Outputting data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13:
The limitation “information processing device according to claim 1” is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
The limitation “the display device that displays the at least one of the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “the display device that displays the at least one of the first flow information and the second flow information output from the information processing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A display device is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14:
The limitation “wherein the display device displays the first flow information and the second flow information in different colors” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element “wherein the display device displays the first flow information and the second flow information in different colors” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Displaying data is a generic computer function. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832 or aniss.chad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights