DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-4, and 6-9 have been presented for examination.
Claims 5 and 10 have been cancelled.
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 that this application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/014029 filed 03/31/2021.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to JAPAN 2020-071055 filed 04/10/2020.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments the previously presented 101 rejection regarding the computer-readable medium is WITHDRAWN.
ii) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the 101 rejections are MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that the claims represent an improvement to a technical solution however the claims merely represent a calculation and no actual reduction of the calculation time or use of resources is seen in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims which can be performed as a “mental process” or “mathematical concept.” As per MPEP 2106.05(a): “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 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 CPU and storage is anything more than a tool to perform the steps of the abstract idea. As such the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Following Applicants amendments the prior art rejections are MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that the Wu does not teach calculating static modes, eigenmodes, and generating the reduced-order matrix using the static mode and the eigenmode. As noted in the previous office action Applicants appear to be claiming the steps known as “static condensation” which are recited in Wu in at least Figure 4 and Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Applicants have not explained the distinction between the prior arts teaching and their claimed steps.
Specifically as per the limitation of “calculating a static mode of an adjacent plane and a boundary plane for each of the plurality of partial structures” the Examiner previously and currently cites at least Figure 4, step 2 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page. See also the calculations at the top half of page 606 in Section 2.2. With respect to the adjacent plane and boundary plane once again the Examiner notes the previous citation in at least Section 2.1 which recites this feature in at least the static condensation of the nodes in Fig 3 whereby the internal nodes are adjacent to each other and have a boundary of nodes that are retained and the “global system of equations of a substructure can be re-ordered such that all degrees of freedom are partitioned into internal and boundary entries.”
Applicants further argue the limitation of “calculate an eigenmode of an internal region of at least one partial structure” This is also seen in at least Figure 4, step 2 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page. See also the calculations at the top half of page 606 in Section 2.2. Specifically Section 2.2 recites the steps of extracting a “reduced common basis for super-element matrices via proper orthogonal decomposition (POD)” which is carried out by the eigenvalue problem in equations 7 and 8.
Lastly Wu teaches the claimed limitation of “generate the reduced-order matrix using the static mode and the eigenmode of the divided partial structures.” As noted in the previous office action Wu teaches this feature in at least Figure 4, step 2 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page. Specifically the last step of section 2.2 progressing from the previous citations is to create a “reduced expression for superelement stiffness matrix” in equation 9.
It is noted that Applicants have merely recited what Wu teaches and that it is silent with respect to the claimed limitation absent explanation of the difference between their steps and the cited “static condensation.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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 1-4 and 6-9 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 machine, and claim 6 is directed to a statutory category as an article of manufacture, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 6 recite the abstract idea of performing a numerical analysis on a physical object 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 per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 6, the limitation of “divide an entire structure of a model of the physical object data into a plurality of partial structures,” would be analogous to a person dividing a structure of an object in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 6, the limitation of “calculate static modes of an adjacent plane and a boundary plane for each of the plurality of partial structures,” would be analogous to a person performing calculations based on a given set of object data. The limitation would also constitute a Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 6, the limitation of “calculate an eigenmode of an internal region of at least one partial structure,” would be analogous to a person performing calculations based on a given set of object data. The limitation would also constitute a Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 6, the limitation of “generate the reduced-order matrix using the static mode and the eigenmode of the divided partial structures” would be analogous to a person performing calculations based on a given set of object data. The limitation would also constitute a 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 including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claims 1, other than reciting a CPU nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-9 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 Claim 1, the additional element of a CPU and the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claim 6 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 6 of “a storage device that stores physical object data indicating characteristics of the physical object;” 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 “a storage device that stores physical object data indicating characteristics of the physical object;” in claims 1 and similarly recited in claim 6, 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 2-4 and 7-9 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 and 6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional element of a CPU and the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claim 6 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 claim 6 of “a storage device that stores physical object data indicating characteristics of the physical object;” 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 “a storage device that stores physical object data indicating characteristics of the physical object;” in claims 1, and similarly recited in claim 6, 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 claims 2 and 7 further includes additional classifications of the calculation in claims 1 and 6 respectively which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. The claims also introduce additional mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 3 and 8 further includes additional sub calculations of the calculation in claims 1 and 6 respectively which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. The claims also introduce additional mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 4 and 9 further includes additional classifications of the calculation in claims 1 and 6 respectively which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. The claims also introduce additional mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-9 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wu, Zijun, et al. "Topology optimization of hierarchical lattice structures with substructuring." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 345 (2019): 602-617, hereafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A hierarchical reduced-order matrix generation device that generates a hierarchical reduced-order matrix for numerical analysis of physical objects, comprising:
a storage device that stores physical object data indicating characteristics of the physical object; and (Figure 3, super element)
a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the storage device, configured to:
divide an entire structure of a model of the physical object data into a plurality of partial structures, (Figure 3, element on left substructured. See also Figure 4, Step 1 on left)
calculate static modes of an adjacent plane and a boundary plane for each of the plurality of partial structures, (Section 2.1 which recites this feature in at least the static condensation of the nodes in Fig 3 whereby the internal nodes are adjacent to each other and have a boundary of nodes that are retained and the “global system of equations of a substructure can be re-ordered such that all degrees of freedom are partitioned into internal and boundary entries.” Examiner notes that Applicants appear to be reciting the steps known as static condensation which is recited in the steps of Figure 4 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page. See also the calculations at the top half of page 606 in Section 2.2. )
calculate an eigenmode of an internal region of at least one partial structure, and (Section 2.2 recites the steps of extracting a “reduced common basis for super-element matrices via proper orthogonal decomposition (POD)” which is carried out by the eigenvalue problem in equations 7 and 8. Examiner notes that Applicants appear to be reciting the steps known as static condensation which is recited in the steps of Figure 4 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page. See also the calculations at the top half of page 606 in Section 2.2)
generate the reduced-order matrix using the static mode and the eigenmode of the divided partial structures. (Last step of section 2.2 progressing from the previous citations is to create a “reduced expression for superelement stiffness matrix” in equation 9. Examiner notes that Applicants appear to be reciting the steps known as static condensation which is recited in the steps of Figure 4 as well as Section 2.1 on page 605 from the middle to the bottom of the page)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The hierarchical reduced-order matrix generation device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is configured to: classify each of divided partial structures into the internal region eliminating the degree of freedom, the boundary region retaining the degree of freedom, and the adjacent region between partial structures, (Page 605, Section 2.1, “Therefore, it is beneficial to eliminate internal nodes from the global system of equations through a priori static condensation, on the one hand to reduce the high computational cost and on the other hand to ease the subsequent parameterization procedure. The global system of equations of a substructure can be re-ordered such that all degrees of freedom are partitioned into internal and boundary entries…”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The hierarchical reduced-order matrix generation device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is configured to perform stepwise division of the entire structure of the model into the partial structures. (Figure 3, element on left substructured. See also Figure 4, Step 1 on left)
Regarding Claim 6: See analogous rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7: See analogous rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 9: See analogous rejection for claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
7. Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Gute, G., et al. "Implementation of a multi-level substructuring solution strategy on a clustered work station network." 36th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. 1995, hereafter Gute.
Regarding Claim 3: Wu does not explicitly recite The hierarchical reduced-order matrix generation device according to claim 2, wherein the CPU is configured to: stepwise divide the entire structure into a plurality of partial structures and calculate the reduced-order matrix by reducing orders and join each of the partial structures in order from a lower layer to a higher layer.
However Gute recites The hierarchical reduced-order matrix generation device according to claim 2, wherein the CPU is configured to: stepwise divide the entire structure into a plurality of partial structures and calculate the reduced-order matrix by reducing orders and join each of the partial structures in order from a lower layer to a higher layer. (Seen in evolution of Figures 4-6 as well as the schematic in Figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the layer approach of Gute for the structure of Wu since it “allows the solution of the various "branches" of the MLS hierarchy to proceed at their own rate without being constrained by slower "branches."” (Gute, See top left of page 1311)
Regarding Claim 8: See analogous rejection for claim 3.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. All Claims are rejected.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Markovic, Damijan, Adnan Ibrahimbegovic, and K. C. Park. "Partitioning based reduced order modelling approach for transient analyses of large structures." Engineering Computations 26.1/2 (2009): 46-68.
Voormeeren, S. N., P. L. C. Van Der Valk, and D. J. Rixen. "Generalized methodology for assembly and reduction of component models for dynamic substructuring." AIA A journal 49.5 (2011): 1010-1020.
Fu, Junjian, et al. "Topology optimization of periodic structures with substructuring." Journal of Mechanical Design 141.7 (2019): 071403.
11. 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
Prosecution Insights