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
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 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 15-16 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-16 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
The limitation “the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using different boundary conditions” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts. Performing a numerical analysis with boundary conditions covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas.
The limitation “compares a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions 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 first flow-velocity vector and the second flow-velocity vector and mentally calculating or determining their difference mentally or with a pen and paper.
The limitation “generates … at least one of first flow information or second flow information based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution 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” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts; and/or 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. Claim 2 discloses that the first/second flow information includes a first/second flow-velocity vector. Generating/calculating a velocity vector covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. It also covers a mental process because it amounts to someone mentally observing the flow-velocity and calculating or determining a vector mentally or with a pen and paper. Moreover, claim 3 discloses that the first/second flow information includes an age of air. Specification at paragraph [0117] discloses that the age of air distribution is calculated by a numerical fluid analysis using a boundary condition. This covers mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“an acquirer”
“acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space”
“a comparator”
“a generator”
“outputs …”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “an acquirer,” “a comparator” and “a 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. A device such as a processor is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is a data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
The additional element “acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space” 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).
Other 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 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2:
The limitations of claim 2 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 2 is not eligible.
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 “a display device that displays 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 “a display device that displays 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.
Claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are not eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrone et al. (“A multi-physical simulation on the IAQ in a movie theatre equipped by different ventilating systems”), hereinafter Petrone, in view of Hu et al. (“Determination of the optimal control parameter range of air supply in an aircraft cabin”), hereinafter Hu, in further view of Healey et al. (US20150331977A1), hereinafter Healey.
Regarding claim 1, Petrone discloses
acquires a first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity distribution of a fluid within a predetermined space (Pg. 21, Abstract: “Momentum, energy and mass conservation equations are solved in order to highlight velocity fields, temperature distributions and carbon dioxide levels in each condition.”) (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Figs. 3-5),
the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution being calculated by using different boundary conditions (Pg. 21, Abstract: “The paper deals with a numerical multi-physical investigation on performance assured by different ventilating systems in supplying air quality and comfort conditions in a movie theatre hall.”) (Pg. 22, Right column: “the present paper deals with a numerical investigation on the performance of 3 different heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in terms of IAQ and thermal comfort in a small movie theatre hall.”) (Pg. 24, Left column: “Equations (1) − (4) have been firstly solved in their steady form with boundary conditions reported in Table 2. Values of parameters appearing in Table 2 are specified in Table 3 for each ventilating system.”) (Table 2 shows boundary conditions; Table 3 shows how different boundary conditions were used for each system.);
a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution (Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”); and
generates and outputs at least one of first flow information or second flow information based on the first flow-velocity distribution and the second flow-velocity distribution (Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively.”) (Figs. 3-5).
Petrone does not explicitly disclose
an acquirer;
a comparator;
a generator;
compares a difference value … with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space; and
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.
However, Hu teaches comparing a difference value of airflow parameters such as velocity for a plurality of solutions to a predetermined threshold (Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2
. The acceptable variation range means the supply parameter differences between two solutions is little enough, so they can be seen continuous.”) (Pg. 470, Left column: “For two solutions, if the distance in terms of V' is less than 1, it means that inlet velocity difference is within the threshold of acceptable variation range of continuous solutions (0.05 m/s).”).
Petrone and Hu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulating fluid dynamics and processing data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this teaching for comparing the difference between different solutions to a predetermined threshold of Hu into Petrone to compare the difference value between a first flow-velocity vector and a second flow-velocity vector with a first predetermined threshold value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so allows clustering solutions that are similar, which allows finding an optimal solution (Hu, Pg. 469: “If solutions in a cluster are in continuous and uniform distribution, the entire domain of this cluster can be seen as optimal. Therefore, the cluster analysis is used to find the clusters of continuous optimal solutions. … When using cluster analysis, different kinds of distance metric can be chosen to quantify similarity of the solutions. … In a large cluster, if the distance between arbitrary adjacent solutions is less than some certain threshold, the large cluster is thought to be continuous for the continuous flow field in a cabin.”).
Therefore, the combination of Petrone and Hu teaches
compares a difference value between a first flow-velocity vector included in the first flow-velocity distribution and a second flow-velocity vector included in the second flow-velocity distribution with a first predetermined threshold value with respect to each of regions within the predetermined space (Petrone, Pgs. 22-23: “This allows to discuss the obtained results from a comparative point of view, in order to strike a balance between strong and weak points for each layout. To this goal, fluid-dynamical, thermal and CO2 concentration fields are presented in the paper along with further parameters specifically deputed to highlight effectiveness of the ventilating systems with respect to the IAQ.”) (Petrone, Pg. 25, Section 3.1: “In Figs. 3− 5 air velocity vectors are presented in a color-scaled map identifying their magnitude, for MAD, PAD and UFD system, respectively. … The significant differences in airflow patterns can be appreciated from a distribution system to another.”) (Hu, Pg. 469, Right column: “The function of normalization is to make these three variables onto a unified scale, so that the difference of three variables can be compared directly. … For two solutions, if their supply parameter differences about three variables: velocity (
V
), angle (
θ
) and temperature (
T
) are
∆
V
,
∆
θ
and
∆
T
, their distance is
(
∆
V
)
2
+
(
∆
θ
)
2
+
(
∆
T
)
2