DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All citations below are to the PG Pub of the instant application, US 2023/0195963 A1. C laim 12 recites, “ wherein the second physical quantity includes a particle diameter of the first raw material or the second raw material dispersed in the mixture. ” Parent claim 9 recites “ calculates a second physical quantity of the mixture based on an average value of the characteristics of the first raw material and the second raw material. ” The only support for the “calculates a second physical quantity based on an average value of the characteristics of the first raw material and the second raw material ” limitation is found in [0075] which states “ The average resin temperature may be calculated by a weighted average using the mixing ratio of the first raw material and the second raw material. ” The specification describes calculating particle diameters in [0103-0116], but does not describe the particle diameter being based on an average value of the characteristics of the first raw material and the second raw material. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the first physical quantity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 11 depends, recites three separate “first physical quantity” limitations. Examiner suggests including the entirety of the phrasing from claim 9 to obviate the rejection, for instance “ the first physical quantity related to the first raw material,” “ the first physical quantity related to a second material,” or “ the first physical quantity of the mixture.” 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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites, outside of the brackets: [ an arithmetic circuit ] configured to ] calculate a physical quantity of a mixture of the first raw material and the second raw material based on the characteristics of the first raw material and the second raw material acquired by the input interface. The above limitation, but for the generic implementation as described below, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Therefore, the limitation falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 13 and 14 recite similar limitations. Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . Claim 8 recites , “ A simulation device ,” “ an input interface configured to acquire at least a characteristic of a first raw material and a characteristic of a second raw material, the first raw material and the second raw material being injected into the kneading extruder ,” and an “arithmetic circuit.” Claim 13 recites “ acquiring at least a characteristic of a first raw material and a characteristic of a second raw material, the first raw material and the second raw material being injected into the kneading extruder .” Claim 14 recites, “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a simulation program for causing a computer to . . . . ” and “ acquiring at least a characteristic of a first raw material and a characteristic of a second raw material, the first raw material and the second raw material being injected into the kneading extruder .” The “ acquiring” functionality/step of claims 8, 13, and 14 amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly data-gathering. Claim 13 has no other additional elements, and the combination of elements amounts to mere data-gathering for use with an abstract idea. The “ simulation device ,” “input interface,” “arithmetic circuit,” and “non-transitory computer readable recording medium” of claims 8 and 14 amount to mere instructions to apply the exception via generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements , along with the aforementioned extra-solution activity, is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim s are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because . As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements regarding generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer implementation . The same analysis applies here in Step 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. For the “acquiring” limitation that was considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong 2 , this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification, in [0030] as published, describes acquiring characteristics via keyboard and mouse, a storage device, or from another computer in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Furthermore, t he Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. , and buySAFE court decisions indicate that mere receipt of data over a network is a well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional function , and the Versata and OIP Techs . court decisions show retrieving information from memory is a well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) . For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 9-12 merely narrow the abstract idea, above. When viewed in combination, none of the claim s amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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. Claim(s) 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomiyama et al. (US 2009/0202669 A1) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" . Claim 8: Tomiyama discloses: A simulation device for calculating a predetermined physical quantity in a kneading extruder (Tomiyama abstract showing extruder simulation, [0055] showing the extruder is used for kneading) , the simulation device comprising: an input interface (Tomiyama Figs. 6-8, [0091]) configured to acquire at least a characteristic of a first raw material (Tomiyama [0049], Figs. 6-8 showing characteristics of a resin) and a characteristic of a second raw material ( Tomiyama Fig. 15 , [0103] characteristics of a liquid addit ive ) , the first raw material and the second raw material being injected into the kneading extruder (Tomiyama Fig. 1, [0055] showing a hopper and liquid adding nozzle s ) ; and an arithmetic circuit configured to calculate a physical quantity of a mixture of the first raw material and the second raw material based on the characteristics of the first raw material and the second raw material acquired by the input interface (Tomiyama Figs. 16-17, [0105-0106] showing various calculated mixture quantities at different positions within the cylinder, including those after the additi ve is inserted by the liquid adding nozzle s ). Claim 13: See relevant rejection of claim 8. Claim 14: See relevant rejection of claim 8. In addition, Tomiyama [0023-0024], Figs. 5-17 describes a computer performing the functions, which therefore includes a non-transitory computer readable medium. Novelty/ Nonobviousness No art is applied to claims 9-12. Specifically, claim 9 requires two general concepts, namely 1) calculating a first physical quantity of a mixture based on two calculations that are both based on underlying material characteristics, and 2) calculating a second physical quantity of the mixture based directly on an average value of the same underlying material characteristics. With respect to claim 9, Tomiyama, as above, generally describes performing calculations with respect to a resin and an additive . Specifically, Tomiyama describes calculating various values based on various characteristics of the resin and additive, but does not disclose the two quantities calculated in the fashion above. Related art, Tomiyama (US 2022/0080646 A1 ) , corresponding to submitted prior art WO201822988) describes modeling a base polymer and additives ([0045-0047], including locations of additives [0049]), but similarly does not disclose the above limitation. Shinichi (JP 2019164965 A1) describes using a model that averages the viscosity of a plastic material and a gas within a kneading chamber, but does not disclose that the gas is a raw material being injected into the kneading extruder. Komatsu et al. (US 2015/0073068), in [0074], discloses that temperatures may generally be estimated based on a weighted average of the underlying components. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN H FLYNN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3108 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Beth Boswell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6737 . 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. /KEVIN H FLYNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3600