DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-19 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to provisional application 63/230,402 filed on 08/06/2021.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants arguments and amendments the previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that their specification discloses “several problems” in techniques that rely on integro-differential equations. Applicants then argue that the specification discloses “an improvement to the functioning of a computer” and use less memory than comparative techniques. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the examiner appreciates Applicants arguments the claims do not represent an improvement to a technology but rather merely a different mathematical calculation to reach a desired outcome. Merely arguing an improvement exists or reciting such a possibility in the specification does not render the claim eligible. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. The present claims do not provide an improvement to the computer specifically because the present claims do not improve the computer itself nor do they provide a specific benefit to the functioning of the computer. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts.” The present claims are nothing more than mere instructions to perform the steps of the abstract idea. The present claims, as drafted, do not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The present claims are not narrowly drawn such that the implementation of the computer is anything more than a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea. Therefore the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) Following Applicants arguments and amendments the previously presented 112 rejection is WITHDRAWN.
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.
5. Claims 1-19 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.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, claim 18 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, and claim 19 is directed to an article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer readable medium, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-19 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 18, and 19, in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims recite the abstract idea of simulating how values are calculated based on a set of given constraints and drawing the resulting graph which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 18 and 19, the limitation of "drawing a periodic box 7 that includes the domain fl a boundary layer F extending from the domain fl, and a gap region A, wherein the periodic box T includes one or more periodic boundary constraints;” would be analogous to a person drawing the periodic box in view of the calculated and/or given values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 18 and 19, the limitation of “imposing the one or more non-periodic boundary constraints on the boundary layer F;” would be analogous to a person limiting the drawing the periodic box in view of the calculated and/or given constraint and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 18 and 19, the limitation of “performing a simulation of a physical process using the non-local model and convolutional properties of Fourier transforms on the periodic box ‘TE;” would be analogous to a person calculating the fourier transforms in view of the calculated and/or given constraint values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
As to claim 18 and 19, other than reciting a “processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 18 and 19, the additional element of a “processor”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 19, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 18 and 19 of “receiving a plurality of parameters associated with a non-local model that has a convolutional structure to be used for one or more simulations, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a shape of a domain fl, a horizon size 6, and one or more non-periodic boundary constraints” and “causing a result of the simulation to be presented” 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)) Additionally the limitations of “receiving a plurality of parameters associated with a non-local model that has a convolutional structure to be used for one or more simulations, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a shape of a domain fl, a horizon size 6, and one or more non-periodic boundary constraints” and “causing a result of the simulation to be presented” in claims 1, 18, and 19, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 18 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 18 and 19, the additional element of a “processor”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 19, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 18 and 19 of “receiving a plurality of parameters associated with a non-local model that has a convolutional structure to be used for one or more simulations, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a shape of a domain fl, a horizon size 6, and one or more non-periodic boundary constraints” and “causing a result of the simulation to be presented” 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)) Additionally the limitation of “receiving a plurality of parameters associated with a non-local model that has a convolutional structure to be used for one or more simulations, wherein the plurality of parameters includes a shape of a domain fl, a horizon size 6, and one or more non-periodic boundary constraints” and “causing a result of the simulation to be presented” similarly recited in claims 1, 18, and 19, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. 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 further defines the type of model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the calculated and/or given values of the parameters which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 4 further defines the steps used in calculating the model values which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the type of model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the type of model calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the type of model calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the type of model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the type of model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the type of model which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 11 further defines the given value for the domain value which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 12 further defines the calculated and/or given values of the parameters which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 13 further elaborates on the calculated and/or given values of the parameters which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 14 further elaborates on the calculated and/or given values of the parameters which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 15 further elaborates on the drawing of the data result of the simulation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 16 further elaborates on the drawing of the data result of the simulation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 17 further elaborates on the receiving data which 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)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-19 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-19 would be allowable pending resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 rejections above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 recites:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 recites:
PNG
media_image3.png
357
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The closest prior art of record includes:
i) Jeong, Chiyoon, Hyun S. Yang, and KyeongDeok Moon. "A novel approach for detecting the horizon using a convolutional neural network and multi-scale edge detection." Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing 30.3 (2019): 1187-1204 teaches the use of convolutional neural networks in image feature detection.
ii) Duque-Zumajo, Diego, J. A. De La Torre, and Pep Español. "Non-local viscosity from the Green–Kubo formula." The Journal of Chemical Physics 152.17 (2020) which teaches the use of periodic boxes in the context of predicting dynamics of equilibrium time correlations.
iii) Goebbert, Jens Henrik, et al. "Direct numerical simulation of fluid turbulence at extreme scale with psOpen." Parallel Computing: On the Road to Exascale. IOS Press, 2016. 777-785 which teaches Fourier transformations as a non-local operation.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Jeong, Chiyoon, Hyun S. Yang, and KyeongDeok Moon. "A novel approach for detecting the horizon using a convolutional neural network and multi-scale edge detection." Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing 30.3 (2019): 1187-1204.
ii) Duque-Zumajo, Diego, J. A. De La Torre, and Pep Español. "Non-local viscosity from the Green–Kubo formula." The Journal of Chemical Physics 152.17 (2020).
iii) Goebbert, Jens Henrik, et al. "Direct numerical simulation of fluid turbulence at extreme scale with psOpen." Parallel Computing: On the Road to Exascale. IOS Press, 2016. 777-785.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186