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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 5/28/2024.
Claims 1 – 26 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 10/21/2022 claims domestic benefit of PCT/CN2021/083775 dated 3/30/2021 and foreign priority to CN 202010244303.3 dated 3/31/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 5/20/2024 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 12/20/2022 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 12/20/2022 has been reviewed. The abstract has 143 words and 15 lines. The abstract is accepted.
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).
STEP 2B: No. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim does not recite any additional elements beyond the judicial exception. At most the claim merely characterizes or names the method as “a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method.” This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it, at best, merely links the mathematical calculation to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h)
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 recites “a nuclear cross section Doppler broadening method implemented on a computing device for reducing internal storage needs, wherein the computing device comprises one or more processors and an internal storage; and the method comprises executing the method according to claim 1 in the computing device.” While the limitations recite to execute the mathematical operations on a computing device that has one or more processors and internal storage, these mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claim recites that the mathematical method is “for reducing internal storage needs”, such elements are merely an allegation or recitation of an intended improvement that is nothing more than a mere claim to the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
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 “… wherein 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 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.
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 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.
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