DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to correspondence filed on 05/26/2022.
Claims 1-5 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concept), without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bitzek et al, Structural Relaxation Made Simple, Physical Review Letters (PRL 97), Oct 2006, in view of David Baraff, An Introduction to Physically Based Modeling: Rigid Body Simulation -Unconstrained Rigid Body, CMU, 1997
Priority
The application claims priority to the Japanese Patent Application JPL 2021-107625, filed 06/29/2021. However, a certified English translation of the priority application was not submitted.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims are interpreted using the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). The claim element ‘elastic analysis object’ is interpreted as an object modeled by discrete elements/particles associated with elastic interactions (which can be subjected to elastic analysis).
Claim Objection
Claim 1, 3, 5 objected to because of the following informalities: though defined in the specification, it is indicated to spell out the FIRE acronym in the claim.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea = mental process and mathematical concept) without significantly more.
(S1) At prima facie Claims 1-5 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: processes (claims 1-2 reciting a method), machines (claims 3-4 reciting an apparatus) and articles of manufacture (claim 5 reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claims are analyzed to identify abstract ideas (highlighted in bold font) and additional elements. Paraphrasing is used for simplifying referencing. Claims with similar limitations, even if not verbatim identical, share the same rationale when analyzed in terms of eligibility under 35 USC 101, as follows.
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 3, 5, recites a simulation method that
represents an elastic analysis object as an aggregate of a plurality of virtual particles, (a representation which can be accomplished in the mind, for example imagining a soccer ball (object) as an aggregate of black and white panels (plurality of virtual particles), this is a mental process;
obtains a force acting on each particle at each time step, and updates a velocity and a position of each particle by solving an equation of motion for each particle, based on the force acting on each particle, the simulation method comprising: ( obtaining (interpreted in BRI and in view of the specification as a calculation updating velocity and position of each panel) and solving an equation are processes that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, these are mental processes, also reciting mathematical concepts (solving an equation of motion)
when solving the equation of motion for each particle, regarding the analysis object as a rigid body, and calculating a force acting on the analysis object and a velocity of the analysis object, based on the force acting on each particle obtained at each time step and the velocity and the position of each particle (processes that can be performed in the mind or with pen and paper, by simply cumulating the forces in respect to a center of mass, e.g. by components under x, y, z coordinates – these are mental processes; solving the equation of motion is a mathematical calculation;
applying FIRE to a motion of the analysis object to calculate a force to be applied to the analysis object (similar to above, performing calculation in the mind or with pen and paper)
obtaining a force to be additionally applied to each particle, by distributing the force to be applied to the analysis object to the plurality of particles; (similar to above, performing calculation in the mind or with pen and paper, mental process)
and solving the equation of motion, by adding the force to be additionally applied, to the force acting on each particle. (similar to above, performing calculation in the mind or with pen and paper, a mental process, and alternatively recites a mathematic calculation, a mathematical concept).
Claim 1 (representative for claims 3, 5) includes limitations that recite mental processes, paraphrased here as “simulate with a model of an object with discrete elements/particles associated with elastic interactions” (a), “update velocity and position of elements solving equation of motion based on the forces exercised on each of them” (b) “determine the force/velocity on/of the object from the force/velocity on/of each elements” (c), “apply FIRE to object motion to obtain force on the object” (d) obtain the force on each particle by distributing the force to each particle” (e ) solve the equation of motion considering the added force (f). In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the guidance from MPEP 2106.04 II. B, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis., as a process aimed at: “model an object by treating it alternatively as a single object and as a collection of components, solving equations between force, velocity and position for individual components and the object as a whole”. Nothing prevents the process to be performed in the mind, by hand, or with the use of a tool. These claim limitations are Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III) as well as mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5 recites an abstract idea.
(S2A1/S2B)
There are no additional elements recited in the claim. Thus, there is nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or to provide significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 5 are thus found ineligible.
Claim 2, representative for claims 4, further recites
wherein a translational force and a torque are calculated as the force acting on the analysis object, (a calculation that a person could do in the mind or using pen and paper, mental process)
a translational velocity and an angular velocity are calculated as the velocity of the analysis object, and (a calculation that a person could do in the mind or using pen and paper, mental process)
when applying the FIRE to the motion of the analysis object, the FIRE is applied to each of a translational motion and a rotational motion of the analysis object to calculate the translational force and the torque as the force to be applied to the analysis object. (a calculation that a person could do in the mind or using pen and paper, mental process; FIRE applied to translational and rotational motions refer to mathematical calculations)
Claims 2, 4 further recite mental processes and mathematical concepts, and continue to recite, furthering, the abstract idea of the independent claims. The are no additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to provide significantly more. Claims 2, 4 are thus ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over of Bitzek et al, Structural Relaxation Made Simple, Physical Review Letters (PRL 97), Oct 2006, hereinafter BIT, in view of David Baraff, An Introduction to Physically Based Modeling: Rigid Body Simulation I—Unconstrained Rigid Body, 1997, Dynamics, hereinafter BAR.
Claims 1, 3, 5 share essentially similar limitations, though not verbatim, and are analyzed together.
The claim can be decomposed in two teachings, one of a ‘FIRE’ method taught by the first reference, and which uses a specific calculation of the force, and a second reference that teaches a different calculation of the force, which would have been obvious to try.
Regarding Claim 1, BIT discloses
a simulation method that represents an elastic analysis object as an aggregate of a plurality of virtual particles, { [Abstract p.17201-1] We introduce a simple local atomic structure optimization algorithm…The surprising efficiency and especially the robustness and versatility of the method; [p17202-3 right col, 2nd par.] range of different systems …setup according to the anisotropic linear
elastic solution; [p17202-4] calculations with up to 38 x106 atoms have been performed without problems. } the method is generic and is applied to various systems including those for elastic analysis; plurality of virtual particles as the atoms.
obtains a force acting on each particle at each time step, and updates a velocity and a position of each particle by solving an equation of motion for each particle, based on the force acting on each particle, the simulation method comprising: { [p. 170201-2 left col. middle]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
} (force acting on each particle as F, updates of velocity v by F2; position as x.,)
when solving the equation of motion for each particle{[p. 170201-1 left col. bottom]
PNG
media_image2.png
143
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
}
applying FIRE to a motion of the analysis object to calculate a force to be applied to the analysis object { [p. 170201-2 left col middle]
PNG
media_image3.png
113
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
}.
solving the equation of motion,
}.
PNG
media_image2.png
143
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BIT teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, except the way the force is determined. More specifically what BIT does not teach, but BAR teaches is (in BRI) determining a (modified) force on the object, based on the forces on particles which constitute (rigid) object and then distributing it among particles as a supplemental force.
regarding the analysis object as a rigid body, and calculating a force acting on the analysis object and a velocity of the analysis object, based on the force acting on each particle obtained at each time step and the velocity and the position of each particle
BAR teaches [p.D11]
PNG
media_image4.png
301
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
adding the force to be additionally applied, to the force acting on each particle.
obtaining a force to be additionally applied to each particle, by distributing the force to be applied to the analysis object to the plurality of particles;
All particles assumed to have the same mass, given N particles, the total force on the rigid object is implicitly equivalent to the sum of forces on each particle, in the direction of the total force vector, ie. Fi=F/N, where Fi and F are vectors in the same direction, and magnitude of force vector on particle i is magnitude of total force divided by N (thus “distributing the force to be applied to the analysis object to the plurality of particles”)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the force used in FIRE algorithm of BIT by adding the force component taught by BAR. It would have been motivated to do so in an attempt to improve the performance of the FIRE algorithm. BIT discloses a method for simulating the movement of particles (which could be applied to entire (multi-particle) body when reduced itself to a point/particle, e.g. a center of mass) using particle forces to update velocity and position. BAR teaches that a rigid-body can be considered as an aggregate of particles, and the equivalent force vector can be calculated by the composition of particle vectors, for translation and rotation (Torque). A POSITA would have recognized that the force in the FIRE algorithm is the key/driving element for updating the motion dynamics of the system., Both references address the field of physics and the same problem in the sense of force determination and its impact on body motion. Modifying the force would have been an obvious-to-try modification with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no more than predictable results.
Thus, claim 1 is obvious over BIT in view of BAR.
Thus re claims 1,3, 5 BIT/BAR discloses the replacement of the force in FIRE calculations. Claims 2, 4 are related to a different form of replacement of the force, into its transversal/linear and rotational components.
Regarding Claim 2, BIT/BAR discloses the limitations of claim 1. BIT does not disclose but BAR discloses:
wherein a translational force and a torque are calculated as the force acting on the analysis object a translational velocity and an angular velocity are calculated as the velocity of the analysis object, and when applying the FIRE to the motion of the analysis object, the FIRE is applied to each of a translational motion and a rotational motion of the analysis object to calculate the translational force and the torque as the force to be applied to the analysis object.
{page D11
PNG
media_image5.png
303
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
119
587
media_image6.png
Greyscale
}
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the general force F (in BIT) with the translational and rotational forces disclosed in BAR because numerical updates schemes such as FIRE are gnostic to the type of force input. This is true especially since the Force input is a construction by analogy with Force in a field, not an actual actual force (the method is inspired by physics in the same way genetic algorithms or swarm optimization are inspired by biological phenomena, but inspiration is not constrained to the laws of biology or physics). A force vector is only required to update velocity and position. BAR teaches an improved force representation for rigid body motion (translation plus rotation) and it would have been predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions to apply such forces within the known framework of BIT.
Furthermore, under KSR, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, it is “obvious to try” with an expectation of success. In this case, substituting decomposed forces (translation and rotation) for the general force vector in FIRE constitutes one of a small set of predictable substitutions, namely supplying FIRE with different force formulations that were already known in the art. Because FIRE only requires force input to operate, such substitution would have been obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of predictable results.
Thus, claims 2 and 4 are obvious over BIT in view of BAR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188