DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 3/18/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1 and 3-9 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1 and 8-9 are amended.
5. Claims 3-7 are original. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
6. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9, filed 3/18/26, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that with the amendment to claim 1 and the specification teaches running a simulation with the selected time step. The applicant argues that claim 1 improves the functioning of a computer and points to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp court case for support as to why the current claims are improving the functioning of the computer. The applicant also points to the LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys. court cases for support as to why the current claims improve the functioning of a computer. (Remarks: pages 7-8)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant points to the Enfish court case as
support for why the independent claims, are not directed towards an abstract idea and why claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. The examiner notes that in the Enfish case, the Federal Circuit read the claims in light of the specification to determine that a table embodying the claimed features is directed to a “self-referential table”. The specification of the current application is different than the specification of the Enfish case, where it doesn’t express how conventional databases or data storage systems are combined with the current language to describe the present invention. The claims of the current application fall within the “Mathematical Concept” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the examiner notes that the claim language does not show an improvement to the functionality of a computer. In MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the functionality of a computer. Further, it’s unclear how the simulation is improving the functioning of a computer, where the computer is not functioning differently. The computer is still reading the information the same way. There is just less information that has to be read, which demonstrates why there is a faster computation time.
Also, the applicant points to the LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. case as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that the LendingTree case involves speeding up a loan-application process, where a borrower avoids physically going to or calling each lender. As stated above, in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the functionality of a computer.
Also, the applicant points to the FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys. case as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that the FairWarning IP case increases the speed of analyzing audit log data. As stated above, in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the functionality of a computer.
Also, for claims 1 and 8, the claims recite the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, for claim 9, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer and medium. The computer and medium would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 8 and 9
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 8 and 9 are directed towards a system, a method and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 8 recites “performing computation with an estimation model for estimating a simulation execution result corresponding to input data, using the input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a model computation result, which is an estimated simulation execution result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is computing an estimate of a simulation execution result. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “calculating, as a result error, a difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is calculating the difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “determining a next set time step size in a next simulation time slot based on the result error.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the determining the next time step size includes determining the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “simulating, by processing circuitry, with an initial set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, by the processing circuitry, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “simulating, by processing circuitry, with an initial set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, by the processing circuitry, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processing circuitry amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “perform computation with an estimation model for estimating a simulation execution result corresponding to input data, using the input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a model computation result, which is an estimated simulation execution result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is computing an estimate of a simulation execution result. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “calculate, as a result error, a difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is calculating the difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and determine a next set time step size in a next simulation time slot based on the result error”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the processing circuitry determines the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “simulate, with a set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulate, with the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “simulate, with a set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulate, with the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processing circuitry amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 9
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 9 recites “a model computation process of performing computation with an estimation model for estimating a simulation execution result corresponding to input data, using the input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a model computation result, which is an estimated simulation execution result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is computing an estimate of a simulation execution result. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “an error calculation process of calculating, as a result error, a difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot”. This limitation is calculating the difference between the simulation execution result of the simulation time slot and the model computation result of the simulation time slot. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and a time step size determination process of determining a next set time step size in a next simulation time slot based on the result error.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the determining the next time step size includes determining the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites “the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a simulation execution process of simulating, with a set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer and medium. The computer and medium would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “a simulation execution process of simulating, with a set time step size, operation of a simulation target in a simulation time slot included in a simulation period, using a simulation engine and using input data for the simulation time slot as input, so as to obtain a simulation execution result of the simulation time slot” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the operation of a simulation target is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the processing circuitry determines the next simulation time slot based on the result error.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the result error is for. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the processing circuitry determines a time slot with a start time point that is an end time point of the simulation time slot as the next simulation time slot when the result error is smaller than a threshold value”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites “and determines a time slot with a start time point that is a time point earlier than the end time point of the simulation time slot as the next simulation time slot when the result error is larger than the threshold value.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the processing circuitry converts a format of input data into a format for the simulation engine”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper, where the formats being converted are not defined. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites “executes the simulation engine using converted input data as input”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the converted input data is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claim 5 recites “and performs computation with the estimation model using the converted input data as input”. This limitation is computing an estimate using the estimation model. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the processing circuitry generates the estimation model by executing the simulation engine using each of a plurality of pieces of input data as input so as to obtain a plurality of simulation execution results”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the pieces of input data are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites “and learning a relationship between input data and a simulation execution result using each set of input data and a simulation execution result as learning data.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the processing circuitry outputs a history of simulation execution results and a history of model computation results.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element of a processing circuitry. The processing circuitry would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
There’s no prior art rejection based on the limitations of independent claim 1 that states “and simulate, with the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size”
“wherein the processing circuitry determines the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds, a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds, and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds, the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”
The closest prior art references of record are Kameda (U.S. PGPub 2019/0385082) which
teaches computer-aided simulation of additive manufacturing processes, Bergey et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0145226) teaches optimizing the modeling of flows within a reservoir, Niu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2009/0006057) teaches simulating the fluid flow within a reservoir, none of these reference taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose, and simulate, with the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size, wherein the processing circuitry determines the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds, a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds, and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds, the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size:
Claim 1 “and simulate, with the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size”
“wherein the processing circuitry determines the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds, a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds, and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds, the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”
Claim 8 “and simulating, by the processing circuitry, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size”
“wherein the determining the next time step size includes determining the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds, a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds, and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds, the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”
Claim 9 “and simulating, in the next set time step size in the next simulation time slot, operation of the simulation target using the simulation engine and using the input data and output a result of the simulation with the next set time step size”
“wherein the determining the next time step size includes determining the next time step size based on a plurality of thresholds such that a first set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than the plurality of thresholds, a second set time step size is determined in response to the result error being larger than a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds and smaller than a second of the plurality of thresholds, and a third set time step size is determined in response to the result error being smaller than the plurality of thresholds, the first set time step size being larger than the second set time step size and third set time step size, the second set time step size being larger than the third set time step size.”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F Pitaro can be reached at (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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights