DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are currently presented for examination.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recited “the node” when it is the first recitation, and it should be “of the plurality of nodes”, this is for all recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “on displacement” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recited “the node” when it is the first recitation, and it should be “of the plurality of nodes”, this is for all recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “on displacement” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recited “the node” when it is the first recitation, and it should be “of the plurality of nodes”, this is for all recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “on displacement” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
an input unit in claim 5
a processing unit in claim 5
an output unit in claim 5
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.
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.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examination, the units will be interpreted as a computer in line with specification [0045]. Also as noted in [0045], the processing unit executes the simulation through the flow chart (algorithm) shown in Figure 2. Additionally the sending and receiving is accepted as part of the computer as laid out in MPEP 2181.
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.
Regarding claims 1-6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 5 is directed to a device, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 5 and 5 recite the abstract idea of simulating the movement of a particle in a zoomed in mesh to determine a stress, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "performing an analysis using a finite element method or a particle method on an analysis model in which an object to be analyzed is divided by a first mesh;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset using a specific evaluation method. Additionally, the limitation of “selecting a partial region of the analysis model as a zooming region, dividing the zooming region by a second mesh finer than the first mesh, and disposing a particle at each of a plurality of nodes of the second mesh;” covers mental processes including making a judgement on how to break up a mesh into a specific portion and increase the number of calculation points on the mesh. Additionally, the limitation of “displacing the particle disposed at the node of the second mesh based on displacement obtained by the analysis using the first mesh;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset after a particle is moved by an applied force calculation. Additionally, the limitation of “setting a boundary condition of the zooming region based on a position of the particle disposed at the node of the second mesh after the displacement;” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how to set conditions after evaluating the position of a particle. Additionally, the limitation of “displacing the particle using the particle method under the boundary condition in the zooming region; and” covers mental processes including making a judgment about what additional forces to apply to the particle and applying them during an evaluation. Additionally, the limitation of “obtaining stress acting on the zooming region based on a position of the particle after the particle in the zooming region is displaced by using the particle method.” covers mental processes including evaluating a stress on the particle. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 5, the additional elements of “an input unit”, “a processing unit”, “an output unit”, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 6, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-4 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 5 and 6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 5, the additional elements of “an input unit”, “a processing unit”, “an output unit”, as well as “non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 6, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the modeling of members, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the type of sand detection model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the forces applied to the particle, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-6 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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding USPPN 2010/0185420 in view of Mitsubishi JP-2019-207476.
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches performing an analysis using … a particle method on an analysis model in which an object to be analyzed is divided …; (Figures 1A to 2B, [0058]-[0067], the motion of a particle in a fluid is characterized)
selecting a partial region of the analysis model …, (Figure 1B-2B, [0073]-[0078], a reduce calculation area is used)
disposing a particle at each of a plurality of nodes …; (Figure 1B, the particle is at a plurality of nodes)
displacing the particle disposed at the node … based on displacement obtained by the analysis …; (Figures 2(a) and 2(b), [0067], [0077]-[0079], the velocity of the displaced particle is calculated)
setting a boundary condition of the zooming region based on a position of the particle disposed at the node … after the displacement; (Figure 1B-2B, [0075], given the flow of particles and after the particle is displaced, due to the iterative method, the boundary conditions of the reduced space is calculated)
displacing the particle using the particle method under the boundary condition in the zooming region; and (Figures 2(a) and 2(b), [0067], [0077]-[0079], the particle is displaced in the reduced region and subject to the boundary conditions)
obtaining … a position of the particle after the particle in the zooming region is displaced by using the particle method. (Figures 2(a) and 2(b), [0067]-[0068], the position of the particle is updated after the applied velocity)
Ding does not explicitly teach a finite element method, a first mesh, selecting … zooming region, dividing the zooming region by a second mesh finer than the first mesh, stress acting on the zooming region
Mitsubishi teaches a finite element method, (Abstract, Page 2, Paragraphs 5-8, a finite element method is used)
a first mesh, (Figure (below), Page 2 Second paragraph, a first mesh is used with all of the large squares that are not sub divided
PNG
media_image1.png
531
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
selecting … zooming region, (Abstract, Figure (above), Page 2 Paragraphs 5-10, a zoomed portion of the mesh is selected)
dividing the zooming region by a second mesh finer than the first mesh, (Abstract, Figure (above), Page 2 Paragraphs 5-10, as seen in part C, the mesh in the zoomed region is finer)
stress acting on the zooming region (Abstract, Page 2 Paragraphs 5-12, the stress of the member in the zooming region is calculated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Ding with Mitsubishi as the references deal with analyses performed on specific regions, in order to implement a system that uses finite element analysis on a zoomed in region of the mesh, to determine the stresses imparted by the members. Mitsubishi would modify Ding by using finite element analysis on a zoomed in region of the mesh, to determine the stresses imparted by the members. The benefit of doing so is the calculation of the hot spot stress with respect to the junction part of a structure can be implemented without omission, and the evaluation omission of the junction part in a structure can be reduced. That is, the joint portion of the structure, or any other portion in the zoomed region, can be evaluated with higher accuracy, and the reliability can be improved. (Mitsubishi Page 2 Paragraph 7)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ding and Mitsubishi, teach the limitations of claim 1. Ding does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis model is obtained by modeling a plurality of members that exert forces on each other, and the zooming region matches a region obtained by modeling one member of the plurality of members.
Mitsubishi teaches wherein the analysis model is obtained by modeling a plurality of members that exert forces on each other, and (Abstract, Page 2 Paragraphs 5-7, a stress at the joint, from the members exerting forces on each other, is calculated)
the zooming region matches a region obtained by modeling one member of the plurality of members. (Figure (above), portion C is one member of the plurality of regions)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ding and Mitsubishi, teach the limitations of claim 2. Ding teaches wherein the boundary condition includes a condition that a position of a … a surface of the zooming region is fixed in an analysis space. ([0042]-[0043], the position of the solid boundary walls is unmovable and fixed)
Ding does not explicitly teach a polygon element of the second mesh
Mitsubishi teaches a polygon element of the second mesh (Figure (above), a square computation mesh is shown and used)
See motivation of claim 1
In regards to claim 5, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Ding teaches the additional computer components in [0069]-[0070].
In regards to claim 6, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Ding teaches the additional computer components in [0069]-[0070].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Mitsubishi, and in further view of Qiang et al. “An object-oriented parallel particle-in-cell code for beam dynamics simulation in linear accelerators.”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ding and Mitsubishi, teach the limitations of claim 3. Ding teaches wherein in the zooming region, in a case where the particle is displaced by using the particle method under the boundary condition, a force of pulling back to an inside of a region by the fixed… ([0044], [0054], the particle hits the boundary and is bounced back to the inside of the computation region)
Ding does not explicitly teach polygon element of the second mesh
Mitsubishi teaches polygon element of the second mesh(Figure (above), a square computation mesh is shown and used)
See motivation of claim 1
The combination of Ding and Mitsubishi does not explicitly teach a particle protruded outside the region
Qiang teaches a particle protruded outside the region (Section 3, a force is applied to a particle that protrudes outside the region)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Ding and Mitsubishi with Qiang as the references deal with analyses performed on specific regions, in order to implement a system that applies forces to particles that protrude outside the calculation region. Qiang would modify Ding and Mitsubishi by applying forces to particles that protrude outside the calculation region. The benefit of doing so is the system has better maintainability, reusability, and extensibility compared with systems using conventional structures. (Qiang Section 7)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu USPPN 2015/0112653: Also teaches the use of a zoomed particle calculation method, to quantify particle movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188