DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Case No. 17920700
Responsive to the communication dated 5/18/2026
Claims 1, 18, 23, 26 are amended.
Claims 24, 25 are cancelled.
Claims 1 – 23, 26 are presented for examination.
Final Action
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.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1. The Applicant asserts that “the claims as amended are not directed to the mathematical concepts themselves, but rather are integrated into a practical application of generating temperature-dependent nuclear cross section data for reactor neutron transport simulations, and therefore satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two because the claim recite a particular technical solution that modifies how nuclear cross section data is stored, accessed, and reconstructed in a computing system.
The Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention recites a practical application of the abstract idea under STEP 2A PRONG TWO because the claim improves the operation of a computer is not persuasive.
The claim recites (in pertinent part):
“… a computer-implemented method for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations, comprising: receiving, by a computing device zero-kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameter data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database…”
“… Coefficient weights are stored in an internal storage of a computing device (i.e., ENDF/B library database) in lieu of storing point-wise cross section data at the target temperature (e.g., energy cross section tables), thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures…”
A review of the instant specification finds the following disclosures:
Page 1 and 2 (background – Summary) of the instant specification describe the invention as follows: “… particle reactions are the basis of nuclear applications. The nuclear cross section reflects the probability of nuclear reaction the particles and the nucleus of the target material, and the accuracy of the calculation result is very high… different temperatures of the target materials lead to different relative speeds of particles with the same incident speed, which expands the width of a resonance peak on a resonance cross section curve. The effect is referred to as Doppler effect… therefore, accurate calculation of the Doppler broadening is crucial for reactors. However, the nuclear cross section is a complex function… the Doppler broadening is a difficult problem to solve. The existing Doppler broadening algorithms can be roughly divided into two categories: one category… uses different energy-cross section tables at different temperatures; the other category relates to an expansion based on an analytically function of the cross section in energy and temperature. The first category… since there are hundreds of nuclides, the computer internal storage required to be used may be up to tens of GBs. The Chinese patent… discloses a relatively fast method in the second category of methods… however, a Faddeeva function that needs to be calculated by this method needs consuming expensive calculation resources… For the technical problems existing in the prior art, the present invention provides a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method…”
NOTE: The above teaches that known mathematical Doppler effect/broadening calculations utilize energy-cross section tables and such tables may require up to tens of GBs of memory.
Page 5 – 6 of the instant specification states: “… according to another aspect of the present invention, a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method implemented on a computing device for reducing internal storage needs is provided… in the method above, when the method is used for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening of all nuclides in an ENDF/B library, all internal storage used in the internal storage are less than 1 G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB… all the nuclides in the ENDF database only need hundreds of MBs of data…”
NOTE: The above teaches that the present invention uses an ENDF/B library for internal storage and this type of library requires less than 1 G, 800MB, or 500 MB of memory.
Page 7 of the instant specification states: “… to make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present invention clearer… the present invention provides a novel nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method, which enables the nuclear cross section at an energy and temperature to be directly calculated on a computer. In some embodiments, only a few hundred MB of data is required for all nuclides in the ENDF database. In some embodiments, the method of the present invention can reduce the internal storage requirements and better adapt to massively parallel calculation… as well known to a person skilled in the art, Doppler broadening is a theory concerning the calculation of the average reaction cross section of the collision between incident particles and target particles of a target material in thermal motion…”
NOTE: the above teaches that the novelty of the present invention is the method of cross section Doppler broadening and also teaches that the method of Doppler broadening is a well-known theory of calculation. Therefore, the specification indicates that the novelty is with regard to an improved calculation theory.
Page 17 of the instant specification states: “… FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of using an ENDF database and an NJOY program to verify the method of the present invention. THE ENDF/B-VIII.0 database 201 is shown in the upper left of FIG. 2. As is well known to a person skilled in the art, the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database includes file 2, which stores usage parameters of most nuclides and represents the distinguishable resonance cross section (the resonance parameters), and file 3, which stores the background cross section…”
NOTE: the above teaches that ENDF/B libraries are a well-known type of internal storage database.
The above disclosure of the instant application discloses that there are two classes of Doppler broadening methods. The first category uses tables, the storage of which, may require up to tens of GBs. The second category requires the calculation of a Faddeeva function which is computationally expensive. The specification discloses that the solution to these problems is to use and ENDF/B database because it only requires less than 1 G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB of internal storage. This database, however, is disclosed by the Applicant as being one which is “well-known” to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Indeed, a search of the prior art found:
Forget_2014 teaches Doppler broadening in Monte Carlo Simulations and teaches “this approach provides a simply way of computing nuclear data at any temperature which is essential for multi-physics calculations, while having a minimal memory footprint which is essential for scalable high-performance computing (abstract) that allows “large reduction of data” and that “if one were to convert 400 nuclides to this form, the total storage would be on the order of 100’s of MB” (section 7). Page 79 – 80 teaches to use ENDF database .
Li_2012 teaches “a Doppler Broadening and Monte Carlo coupling system has been developed based on Fast-Doppler-Broadening (FDB) method and Reactor Monte Carlo code (RMC)” (page 705 introduction) and that “Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC was developed by REAL group of Tsinghua University. RMC uses ACE-format data libraries. Detailed description of RMC code can be found in” a paper called “Research on Fast-Doppler Broadening of Neutron Cross Section” dated April 2012. (page 705 Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC). Page 706 teaches: “… Doppler-Monte Carlo…” with “ENDF data files”.
Therefore, it is clear that reactor Monte Carlo simulation methods have been known at least since 2012 when papers were published in journals and libraries were provided in ACE-format. ACE stands for A Compact ENDF which is a specialized binary file format used in nuclear engineering for Monte Carlo particle transport simulations. This indicates that Monte Carlo Simulations are well-understood routine and conventional mathematical methods used with Doppler broadening calculations and accordingly are not significantly more than the abstract idea. This also indicates that, as admitted by the Applicant, ENDF data is well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art as this type of data is used by peer reviewed authors in the field of Doppler broadening Monte Carlo calculations.
The claimed invention; however, is not an improvement to the computer itself, but rather a modified calculation that uses data from a database that the Applicant admits is a “well-known” database. Accordingly, the claim is not making an improvement to a computer, but rather, the improvement is to the mathematical calculation itself because the method of calculation does not utilize energy-cross section tables at different temperatures and it is those table which the Applicant discloses as being “up to tens of GBs.” The Applicant’s claimed invention is not reciting elements that result in a new type of data structure but rather claiming a mathematical calculation that merely operates on a type of data which the Applicant’s specification discloses is merely known data stored in a well-known database.
If the data and database, as admitted by the Applicant, are known in the art then merely executing a mathematical calculation utilizing the known database does not result in a new type of database or an improvement to a computer memory. While the specification indicates that the mathematical calculations are potentially more efficient/dense compared to previous mathematical calculations, this is an improvement to the mathematical calculation itself.
While the efficiency/density of the theoretical calculation space may mean that the information content of the data is increased, the density of mid-calculation content is an attribute of the mathematical calculation itself. The mathematical calculation, being more efficient, does not change the underlying operation of the computer’s memory read/write access or any other operational characteristic of the computer.
Further, while the claim recites “a computer-implemented method for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations comprising: receiving, by a computing device, zero-Kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameters data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database”
These elements, however, merely recite to perform the mathematical calculations on a computer and merely executing a mathematical abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of a practical application. While the claim elements recites that the mathematical method if “for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening” this merely links the mathematical calculations to a filed of use and nuclear cross section Doppler broadening, as admitted by the applicant, is “well-known to a person skilled in the art” and is “a theory concerning the calculation of the average reaction cross section of the collision between incident particles and target particles.” Therefore, the claim is directed towards mathematical calculation in the field a “well-known” scientific theory. Scientific calculations are clearly abstract ideas under 35 UC 101 and the mere execution of such scientific calculations on a computer does not save such calculations from being abstract.
While the above amendment recites “… for use in reactor neutron transport simulations…” the instant specification at page 20 states: “… as an application of the present invention, the present invention also provides a reactor Monte Carlo simulation method, which includes: using the nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method…”
This clearly states that the “application” of the mathematical cross section Doppler broadening method is a further mathematical calculation known as a Monte Carlo method. A Monte Carlo method is simply the repeated execution of the Doppler broadening method based on repeated random sampling of input data. Therefore the above elements simply are a mathematical calculation that is performed repeatedly.
While the claim recites: “…receiving, by a computing device, zero-Kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameters data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database” this is merely data gathering from a known database. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application as they are merely extra-solution data gathering activites.
While the claim recites “performing, by the computer device, a discrete orthogonal transformation” this is merely a recitation to perform a mathematical calculation on a generally recited computer. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “generating, by the computer device, a group of coefficient weights…” this is merely a recitation to produce a numeric output by use of a generally recited computer. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “Constructing, by the computing device, a compact representation of the product of the average reaction cross section function and energy F(x,0), wherein the compact representation is a sum of the orthogonal functions of a limited number of the group of coefficnet weights Fcj(θ); reconstructing, by the computing device, the product of the average reaction cross section and the energy at a target temperature F(x,θ) using the compact representation, wherein the coefficient weights are stored for reuse in computation of average reaction cross sections at different temperatures” this is merely a recitation of mathematical calculations performed on a computer and executing math on a computer is not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “determining, by the computer device, the reconstructed average reaction cross section for use in a reactor Monte Carlo simulation” this is merely the recitation to use a computing device to perform mathematical calculation. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
Claim 18. The Applicant has amended claim 23 to recite: “A computing device for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations with reduced internal storage needs, comprising: one or more processors; and
An internal storage storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
Execute the method according to claim 1;
Store a set of coefficient weights representing a compact representation of a product of an average reaction cross section function and energy;
Reconstruct the average nuclear cross section data at a plurality of temperatures using the stored coefficient weights without storing point-wise cross section data at the plurality of temperatures;
Thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures without recomputing from the zero-Kelvin data.”
The Applicant asserts that such claim elements make an improvement to the operation of the computer and therefore provide a practical application, however, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant asserts that storing and reconstructing data are an improvement to the functioning of the memory itself. This is simply not true. The storage and retrieval of information from the memory by the theoretical Doppler broadening calculation is recited broadly as “store” a set of coefficients. The way the computer operates to perform the storage function is unchanged. The Applicant is conflating the storage of a particular type of data with the operation of the memory. The choice to store, for example, 1GB of data into a memory is not an improvement of the memory function when compared to the choice to store, for example, 10GB of data in that same memory at a previous time.
Further, the claimed reconstruction of cross section data using the stored coefficients without the mathematical calculation also requiring point-wise cross section data is an attribute of the mathematical calculation itself. This has no impact on how the computer memory operates to store or retrieve data. This limitation is merely a claim to the functioning of the theoretical Doppler broadening calculation itself. Because previous incarnations of such theoretical mathematical calculations may have required point-wise section data for the plurality of templates and because the claimed theoretical mathematical calculation do not require point-wise section data as input this may provide an indication the claimed mathematical calculation itself is novel. Novelty of an abstract mathematical calculation, however, is not an indicium of a practical application.
Indeed, these elements are merely descriptive of retrieving required data used in a mathematical calculation. The claim describes retrieve a first type of data but not a second type of data. Retrieval of required data is insignificant pre/extra-solution activity. Retrieving data used as input for an equation, according to MPEP 2106.05(g) is mere data gathering activity. Also, selecting a particular data type to be manipulated is also, according to MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, while the claim recites “Thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures without recomputing from the zero-Kelvin data” this is merely claiming a solution or outcome. The claim is to “reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of stored data” (i.e., coefficient weights) without requiring computing from another type of data (zero-Kelvin data) but this is an attribute of the claimed abstract theoretical calculation itself. These claim elements merely describe that the algorithm requires retrieval of coefficient weights and not zero-Kelvin data. The type of data required by a theoretical calculation is not a practical application of the calculation. Nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, these claim elements do not result in the computer achieving a function not previously performed because a computer memory has always been capable of providing reuse of stored data and not storing irrelevant data and not accessing irrelevant data has always been a way to reduce memory access.
Claim 23. The Applicant has amended claim 23 to recite: “the device according to claim 18, wherein the computing temperature-dependent nuclear cross section data of all nuclides in an ENDF/B library, all internal storages used are less than 1G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB.
A review of the specification finds that page 17 discloses that ENDF/B databases “is well known to a person skilled in the art.” While claim 23 has been amended to recite the “device” of claim 18, the device of claim 18 is a computer. Accordingly, claim 23 is reciting a computer where the data stored in the internal storage of the computer is a well-known database. Merely storing a well-known database in a computer memory is not indicative of a practical application nor is it indicative of the claim as a whole being significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the mathematical equations are merely using a well-known database stored in a computer memory.
Claim 26. The Applicant has amended claim 26 to recite: “a computer-implemented reactor Monte Carlo simulation method…”.
Merely amending the claim to recite that the Monte Carlo simulation method is executed on a generally recited computer is not a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea. A Monte Carlo simulation is a mathematical technique that models the probability of different outcomes by running thousands or millions of random trials. Instead of calculating a single fixed answer this method uses probability distributions to calculate a range of possible numerical outcomes and their likelihood. This claim merely recites to perform an mathematical method of a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art")
The amended claim merely recites to execute the mathematical abstract idea on a generally recited computer. Therefore, it is found that amended claim 26 does NOT overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. The rejection is maintained.
Therefore, the Office maintains the rejection under 35 USC 101.
End Response to Arguments
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 - 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes, the claim recites “… method, comprising:”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Yes. The claim recites a mathematical abstract idea because the claim recites a series of mathematical operations and outputs a mathematical result.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: No. While the claim recites “a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method” these element merely name the method which, at most, merely links the mathematical abstract idea to a technological field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
While the claim recites (in pertinent part):
“… a computer-implemented method for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations, comprising: receiving, by a computing device zero-kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameter data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database…”
“… Coefficient weights are stored in an internal storage of a computing device (i.e., ENDF/B library database) in lieu of storing point-wise cross section data at the target temperature (e.g., energy cross section tables), thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures…”
A review of the instant specification finds the following disclosures:
Page 1 and 2 (background – Summary) of the instant specification describe the invention as follows: “… particle reactions are the basis of nuclear applications. The nuclear cross section reflects the probability of nuclear reaction the particles and the nucleus of the target material, and the accuracy of the calculation result is very high… different temperatures of the target materials lead to different relative speeds of particles with the same incident speed, which expands the width of a resonance peak on a resonance cross section curve. The effect is referred to as Doppler effect… therefore, accurate calculation of the Doppler broadening is crucial for reactors. However, the nuclear cross section is a complex function… the Doppler broadening is a difficult problem to solve. The existing Doppler broadening algorithms can be roughly divided into two categories: one category… uses different energy-cross section tables at different temperatures; the other category relates to an expansion based on an analytically function of the cross section in energy and temperature. The first category… since there are hundreds of nuclides, the computer internal storage required to be used may be up to tens of GBs. The Chinese patent… discloses a relatively fast method in the second category of methods… however, a Faddeeva function that needs to be calculated by this method needs consuming expensive calculation resources… For the technical problems existing in the prior art, the present invention provides a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method…”
NOTE: The above teaches that known mathematical Doppler effect/broadening calculations utilize energy-cross section tables and such tables may require up to tens of GBs of memory.
Page 5 – 6 of the instant specification states: “… according to another aspect of the present invention, a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method implemented on a computing device for reducing internal storage needs is provided… in the method above, when the method is used for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening of all nuclides in an ENDF/B library, all internal storage used in the internal storage are less than 1 G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB… all the nuclides in the ENDF database only need hundreds of MBs of data…”
NOTE: The above teaches that the present invention uses an ENDF/B library for internal storage and this type of library requires less than 1 G, 800MB, or 500 MB of memory.
Page 7 of the instant specification states: “… to make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present invention clearer… the present invention provides a novel nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method, which enables the nuclear cross section at an energy and temperature to be directly calculated on a computer. In some embodiments, only a few hundred MB of data is required for all nuclides in the ENDF database. In some embodiments, the method of the present invention can reduce the internal storage requirements and better adapt to massively parallel calculation… as well known to a person skilled in the art, Doppler broadening is a theory concerning the calculation of the average reaction cross section of the collision between incident particles and target particles of a target material in thermal motion…”
NOTE: the above teaches that the novelty of the present invention is the method of cross section Doppler broadening and also teaches that the method of Doppler broadening is a well-known theory of calculation. Therefore, the specification indicates that the novelty is with regard to an improved calculation theory.
Page 17 of the instant specification states: “… FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of using an ENDF database and an NJOY program to verify the method of the present invention. THE ENDF/B-VIII.0 database 201 is shown in the upper left of FIG. 2. As is well known to a person skilled in the art, the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database includes file 2, which stores usage parameters of most nuclides and represents the distinguishable resonance cross section (the resonance parameters), and file 3, which stores the background cross section…”
NOTE: the above teaches that ENDF/B libraries are a well-known type of internal storage database.
The above disclosure of the instant application discloses that there are two classes of Doppler broadening methods. The first category uses tables, the storage of which, may require up to tens of GBs. The second category requires the calculation of a Faddeeva function which is computationally expensive. The specification discloses that the solution to these problems is to use and ENDF/B database because it only requires less than 1 G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB of internal storage. This database, however, is disclosed by the Applicant as being one which is “well-known” to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Indeed, a search of the prior art found:
Forget_2014 teaches Doppler broadening in Monte Carlo Simulations and teaches “this approach provides a simply way of computing nuclear data at any temperature which is essential for multi-physics calculations, while having a minimal memory footprint which is essential for scalable high-performance computing (abstract) that allows “large reduction of data” and that “if one were to convert 400 nuclides to this form, the total storage would be on the order of 100’s of MB” (section 7). Page 79 – 80 teaches to use ENDF database .
Li_2012 teaches “a Doppler Broadening and Monte Carlo coupling system has been developed based on Fast-Doppler-Broadening (FDB) method and Reactor Monte Carlo code (RMC)” (page 705 introduction) and that “Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC was developed by REAL group of Tsinghua University. RMC uses ACE-format data libraries. Detailed description of RMC code can be found in” a paper called “Research on Fast-Doppler Broadening of Neutron Cross Section” dated April 2012. (page 705 Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC). Page 706 teaches: “… Doppler-Monte Carlo…” with “ENDF data files”.
Therefore, it is clear that reactor Monte Carlo simulation methods have been known at least since 2012 when papers were published in journals and libraries were provided in ACE-format. ACE stands for A Compact ENDF which is a specialized binary file format used in nuclear engineering for Monte Carlo particle transport simulations. This indicates that Monte Carlo Simulations are well-understood routine and conventional mathematical methods used with Doppler broadening calculations and accordingly are not significantly more than the abstract idea. This also indicates that, as admitted by the Applicant, ENDF data is well-known by those of ordinary skill in the art as this type of data is used by peer reviewed authors in the field of Doppler broadening Monte Carlo calculations.
The claimed invention; however, is not an improvement to the computer itself, but rather a modified calculation that uses data from a database that the Applicant admits is a “well-known” database. Accordingly, the claim is not making an improvement to a computer, but rather, the improvement is to the mathematical calculation itself because the method of calculation does not utilize energy-cross section tables at different temperatures and it is those table which the Applicant discloses as being “up to tens of GBs.” The Applicant’s claimed invention is not reciting elements that result in a new type of data structure but rather claiming a mathematical calculation that merely operates on a type of data which the Applicant’s specification discloses is merely known data stored in a well-known database.
If the data and database, as admitted by the Applicant, are known in the art then merely executing a mathematical calculation utilizing the known database does not result in a new type of database or an improvement to a computer memory. While the specification indicates that the mathematical calculations are potentially more efficient/dense compared to previous mathematical calculations, this is an improvement to the mathematical calculation itself.
While the efficiency/density of the theoretical calculation space may mean that the information content of the data is increased, the density of mid-calculation content is an attribute of the mathematical calculation itself. The mathematical calculation, being more efficient, does not change the underlying operation of the computer’s memory read/write access or any other operational characteristic of the computer.
Further, while the claim recites “a computer-implemented method for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations comprising: receiving, by a computing device, zero-Kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameters data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database”
These elements, however, merely recite to perform the mathematical calculations on a computer and merely executing a mathematical abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of a practical application. While the claim elements recites that the mathematical method if “for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening” this merely links the mathematical calculations to a filed of use and nuclear cross section Doppler broadening, as admitted by the applicant, is “well-known to a person skilled in the art” and is “a theory concerning the calculation of the average reaction cross section of the collision between incident particles and target particles.” Therefore, the claim is directed towards mathematical calculation in the field a “well-known” scientific theory. Scientific calculations are clearly abstract ideas under 35 UC 101 and the mere execution of such scientific calculations on a computer does not save such calculations from being abstract.
While the above amendment recites “… for use in reactor neutron transport simulations…” the instant specification at page 20 states: “… as an application of the present invention, the present invention also provides a reactor Monte Carlo simulation method, which includes: using the nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method…”
This clearly states that the “application” of the mathematical cross section Doppler broadening method is a further mathematical calculation known as a Monte Carlo method. A Monte Carlo method is simply the repeated execution of the Doppler broadening method based on repeated random sampling of input data. Therefore the above elements simply are a mathematical calculation that is performed repeatedly.
While the claim recites: “…receiving, by a computing device, zero-Kelvin nuclear reaction cross section data and resonance parameters data from an Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) database” this is merely data gathering from a known database. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application as they are merely extra-solution data gathering activites.
While the claim recites “performing, by the computer device, a discrete orthogonal transformation” this is merely a recitation to perform a mathematical calculation on a generally recited computer. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “generating, by the computer device, a group of coefficient weights…” this is merely a recitation to produce a numeric output by use of a generally recited computer. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “Constructing, by the computing device, a compact representation of the product of the average reaction cross section function and energy F(x,0), wherein the compact representation is a sum of the orthogonal functions of a limited number of the group of coefficnet weights Fcj(θ); reconstructing, by the computing device, the product of the average reaction cross section and the energy at a target temperature F(x,θ) using the compact representation, wherein the coefficient weights are stored for reuse in computation of average reaction cross sections at different temperatures” this is merely a recitation of mathematical calculations performed on a computer and executing math on a computer is not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
While the claim recites “determining, by the computer device, the reconstructed average reaction cross section for use in a reactor Monte Carlo simulation” this is merely the recitation to use a computing device to perform mathematical calculation. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more.
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. While the claim recites that the mathematical calculations are performed on a computer and that the algorithm retrieves well-known data from a database. This is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself as MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that selecting a particular type of data to be manipulated is insignificant extra solution activity. The claim as a whole recites a Doppler broadening theoretical calculation for use in a Monte Carlo mathematical calculation that stores and retrieves data from a ENDF database. Additionally, while the claim recites “Thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures without recomputing from the zero-Kelvin data” this is merely claiming a solution or outcome. The claim is to “reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of stored data” (i.e., coefficient weights) without requiring computing from another type of data (zero-Kelvin data) but this is an attribute of the claimed abstract theoretical calculation itself. These claim elements merely describe that the algorithm requires retrieval of coefficient weights and not zero-Kelvin data. The type of data required by a theoretical calculation is not a practical application of the calculation. Nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, these claim elements do not result in the computer achieving a function not previously performed because a computer memory has always been capable of providing reuse of stored data and not storing irrelevant data and not accessing irrelevant data has always been a way to reduce memory access.
Claim 2 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 Merely further recites additional mathematical elements and does not recite additional elements beyond the mathematical ones which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaning full way. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application. Further the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the incident particles are neutrons” which merely characterizes elements of the mathematical calculation and does nothing more than link the abstract idea to a field of use. Accordingly, the claim does not recite a practical application nor is the claim significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 18. The claim recites: “A computing device for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening for use in reactor neutron transport simulations with reduced internal storage needs, comprising: one or more processors; and
An internal storage storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
Execute the method according to claim 1;
Store a set of coefficient weights representing a compact representation of a product of an average reaction cross section function and energy;
Reconstruct the average nuclear cross section data at a plurality of temperatures using the stored coefficient weights without storing point-wise cross section data at the plurality of temperatures;
Thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures without recomputing from the zero-Kelvin data.”
While the limitations recite to execute the mathematical operations on a computing device this is a mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim is constructed so as to indicate that the memory and computer are improved.
This however is simply not true. The storage and retrieval of information from the memory by the theoretical Doppler broadening calculation is recited broadly as “store” a set of coefficients. The way the computer operates to perform the storage function is unchanged. The Applicant is conflating the storage of a particular type of data with the operation of the memory. The choice to store, for example, 1GB of data into a memory is not an improvement of the memory function when compared to the choice to store, for example, 10GB of data in that same memory at a previous time.
Further, the claimed reconstruction of cross section data using the stored coefficients without the mathematical calculation also requiring point-wise cross section data is an attribute of the mathematical calculation itself. This has no impact on how the computer memory operates to store or retrieve data. This limitation is merely a claim to the functioning of the theoretical Doppler broadening calculation itself. Because previous incarnations of such theoretical mathematical calculations may have required point-wise section data for the plurality of templates and because the claimed theoretical mathematical calculation do not require point-wise section data as input this may provide an indication the claimed mathematical calculation itself is novel. Novelty of an abstract mathematical calculation, however, is not an indicium of a practical application.
Indeed, these elements are merely descriptive of retrieving required data used in a mathematical calculation. The claim describes retrieve a first type of data but not a second type of data. Retrieval of required data is insignificant pre/extra-solution activity. Retrieving data used as input for an equation, according to MPEP 2106.05(g) is mere data gathering activity. Also, selecting a particular data type to be manipulated is also, according to MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additionally, while the claim recites “Thereby reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of the stored coefficient weights to compute cross sections at different temperatures without recomputing from the zero-Kelvin data” this is merely claiming a solution or outcome. The claim is to “reducing memory access operations and enabling reuse of stored data” (i.e., coefficient weights) without requiring computing from another type of data (zero-Kelvin data) but this is an attribute of the claimed abstract theoretical calculation itself. These claim elements merely describe that the algorithm requires retrieval of coefficient weights and not zero-Kelvin data. The type of data required by a theoretical calculation is not a practical application of the calculation. Nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, these claim elements do not result in the computer achieving a function not previously performed because a computer memory has always been capable of providing reuse of stored data and not storing irrelevant data and not accessing irrelevant data has always been a way to reduce memory access.
Claim 19 recites “… wherein the processor is adapted to parallel calculation for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening”, however, merely reciting at a high level that the computer is adapted for parallel processing is not a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This merely describes the computer. Li_2012 provides evidence that Doppler Broadening methods are implemented in parallel computing to take advantage of multi-processor computers to speed up the Doppler broadening process. See page 705 section titled Fast-Doppler-Broadening method. Accordingly, the use of a plurality of computers for distributing calculations among parallel computers is well-understood, routine, conventional in the art since at least 2012. Accordingly, merely reciting to implement the abstract idea on a general computing device or even on general processor adapted for parallel processing is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 20 recites “… wherein the processor is a graphics processing unit (GPU).” The recitation of a graphics processing unit is merely the recitation of a computer upon which the abstract idea is merely executed. Invoking a computer as a tool is not indicative of a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, using a graphics processing unit is well-understood routine and conventional in the art. This is evidenced by Rankin_2019 which teaches at page 30: “increasing popularity of co-processors systems… [include]… a FPGA/GPU/TPU…” and page 33 neural network “inference on CPU or GPU…”. Therefore, it is popular and known to use GPU as a processor for high energy physics calculations. Also, Nelson_2009 teaches “utilizing Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) to accelerate Monte Carlo neutron transport problems. These GPUs use many parallel processors to perform the complex calculations… 2006 NVIDIA… CUDA…” (abstract). Accordingly, it was known in the art to use GPUs to execute complex mathematical Doppler broadening calculations (page 13) at least since 2009 and those of ordinary skill in the art state that doing so is “polular”.
Claim 21 recites “… wherein the processor is a neural network chip” which is merely a recitation to execute the abstract idea on a well-understood routine and conventional computing device. This is not a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Evidence of this is provided by Ranking_2019 which teaches “machine learning has become a common tool for broad spectrum of problems (industry & physics) (page 2) and “machine learning algorithms, especially deep neural networks, are becoming more and more common in HEP (high energy physics) (page 3) and teaches that those of ordinary skill in the art can “learn how to accelerate NN interface firmware on a real FPGA (provided on Amazon cloud). Accordingly, it is well understood routine and conventional to use a neural network chip (i.e., FPGA provided on commercial cloud servers) for high energy physics calculation. Therefore, these claim elements are not a practical application because this merely recites to execute the mathematical calculation on a commercially available computing device. Also, these elements are not significantly more because they are well understood routine and conventional.
Claim 22 recites “… wherein the processor is a Field Programmable Logic Gate Array (FPGA)”; however, the use of FPGA is well-understood routine and conventional as they “have been used for decades to provide fast computing solutions” as evidenced by Rankin_2019 at page 2. At page 8 Rankin_2019 states “Field-programmable gate arrays are a common solution for fast-computing” Ranking_2019 also teaches the FPGA co-processors machines are available as a commercial offering on Amazon Web Services (AWS). See page 30. Accordingly, because FPGA’s are offered as a commercial tool and are “common” and used “for decades.” This makes the recitation of an FPGA merely a well-understood routine and conventional computing device. Such elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, this is merely a recitation to execute the abstract idea on a computing device. Therefore, this is not a practical application.
Claim 23 recites: “the device according to claim 18, wherein the computing temperature-dependent nuclear cross section data of all nuclides in an ENDF/B library, all internal storages used are less than 1G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB” however, this merely describes the computing environment. Forget_2014 teaches Doppler broadening and teaches “this approach provides a simply way of computing nuclear data at any temperature which is essential for multi-physics calculations, while having a minimal memory footprint which is essential for scalable high-performance computing (abstract) that allows “large reduction of data” and that “if one were to convert 400 nuclides to this form, the total storage would be on the order of 100’s of MB” (section 7). Accordingly, it has been known in the art since at least 2014 to perform Doppler broadening where the internal storage is less than 1G, or less than 800 MB, or less than 500 MB. Therefore, using computer with such memory amounts is not significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, Forget_2014 also teaches ENDF/B libraries. These claim elements merely recite a source for data used in the mathematical calculations. This is not indicative of a practical application as it merely links the math to a field specific data source. This is also not significantly more because it is well-understood, routine, and conventional to have ENDF/B as a data source as evidenced by Forget_2014.
Further, A review of the specification finds that page 17 discloses that ENDF/B databases “is well known to a person skilled in the art.”
Also, while claim 23 recites the “device” of claim 18, the device of claim 18 is a computer. Accordingly, claim 23 is reciting a computer where the data stored in the internal storage of the computer is a well-known database. Merely storing a well-known database in a computer memory is not indicative of a practical application nor is it indicative of the claim as a whole being significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the mathematical equations are merely using a well-known database stored in a computer memory.
Claim 24 recites “a computing device for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening configured to implement the method according to claim 18” which merely recites to execute the abstract mathematical idea on a general-purpose computer and merely links the mathematical abstract idea to a field of use. Such elements are not indicative of a practical application nor are they significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 25 recites “… wherein the computing device is a computer, or a plurality of computers for implementing distributed calculation; or a calculation network formed by the plurality of computers” however, the recitation of a computer upon which the abstract idea is executed is not a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely recites a computer at a high level of generality and in the alternative a plurality of computer. Merely reciting “the computing device is a computer” is the mere recitation of a high-level generally-recited computer and this is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Li_2012 provides evidence that Doppler Broadening methods are implemented in parallel computing to take advantage of multi-processor computers to speed up the Doppler broadening process. See page 705 section titled Fast-Doppler-Broadening method. Accordingly, the use of a plurality of computers for distributing calculations among parallel computers is well-understood, routine, conventional in the art since at least 2013. Accordingly, merely reciting to implement the abstract idea on a general computing device or even on distributed computing devices such as parallel processors is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 26 recites “a computer implemented reactor Monte Carlo simulation method, comprising using the method according to claim 1 for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening”, however, this merely names the method (i.e., a reactor Monte Carlo simulation method) and links the mathematical abstract idea to a field of use (i.e., for nuclear cross section Doppler broadening). Such elements are not indicative of a practical application as these do not recite elements which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Further, Monte Carlo (MC) methods are very common and increasingly used for reactor Doppler broadening, particularly in high-fidelity simulations. Evidence of this is provided by Forget_2014 and also Li_2012 (see the citations below).
Merely reciting that the Monte Carlo simulation method is executed on a generally recited computer is not a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea. A Monte Carlo simulation is a mathematical technique that models the probability of different outcomes by running thousands or millions of random trials. Instead of calculating a single fixed answer this method uses probability distributions to calculate a range of possible numerical outcomes and their likelihood. This claim merely recites to perform an mathematical method of a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art")
The amended claim merely recites to execute the mathematical abstract idea on a generally recited computer.
Forget_2014 teaches Doppler broadening in Monte Carlo Simulations and teaches “this approach provides a simply way of computing nuclear data at any temperature which is essential for multi-physics calculations, while having a minimal memory footprint which is essential for scalable high-performance computing (abstract) that allows “large reduction of data” and that “if one were to convert 400 nuclides to this form, the total storage would be on the order of 100’s of MB” (section 7).
Li_2012 teaches “a Doppler Broadening and Monte Carlo coupling system has been developed based on Fast-Doppler-Broadening (FDB) method and Reactor Monte Carlo code (RMC)” (page 705 introduction) and that “Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC was developed by REAL group of Tsinghua University. RMC uses ACE-format data libraries. Detailed description of RMC code can be found in” a paper called “Research on Fast-Doppler Broadening of Neutron Cross Section” dated April 2012. (page 705 Reactor Monte Carlo code RMC).
Therefore, it is clear that reactor Monte Carlo simulation methods have been known at least since 2012 when papers were published in journals and libraries were provided in ACE-format. ACE stands for A Compact ENDF which is a specialized binary file format used in nuclear engineering for Monte Carlo particle transport simulations. This indicates that Monte Carlo Simulations are well-understood routine and conventional and accordingly are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights