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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 06/16/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11 are canceled.
Claim 15 has been added.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, and 12-15 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
The substitute specification filed 06/16/2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a mark-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied in addition to the clean copy. Therefore, the objection is repeated in this communication.
Claim 1 has been canceled. Therefore, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
477
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitation falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract. In addition, applicant’s own specification (See: pgs. 8-9 in particular step S02) supports that the recites limitation falls under mathematical concepts. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Further, the last limitation of “generating” step falls under intended use in particular “generating a control variable for controlling operation of the real system based on the determined state evolution” is simply falls under “mathematical concept” with an intended use of “controlling operation of the real system”. The “control variable” have not applied to the real system operation but simply an intended use of “controlling”.
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image2.png
423
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite how the machine learning model itself is improved, how the optimization is performed, or how the engineering systems controlled. Further, examiner consulted the specification whether the disclosed invention improves technology and to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. After carefully examined the claimed solution to problem recited in applicant argument, the claims do not reflect to cover a particular solution to a problem. The claims merely use the neural network technique like mathematical function. Further, the applicant specification is clearly states the technique is well-known (See: Applicants disclosure pg. 11 first paragraph).
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
337
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. the additional element of “receiving real measured variables from one or more sensors” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image4.png
324
641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, the additional element of “receiving” is simply falls under data gathering.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pgs. 10-12, filed 06/16/2026 with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 2-6, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 2-6, 9-10, and 13-15 are directed to a method.
Claim 12 is directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 2-6, 9-10, and 12-15 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 15:
A computer-implemented method for determining a state evolution of a real system with a plurality N of degrees of freedom, comprising the following steps:
(a) receiving, via one or more sensors associated with the real system, real measured variables corresponding to a degree of freedom (f) detected at different times up to a time (to) [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
b) determining states for each of the plurality N of degrees of freedom up to a time to, wherein, in particular, the determining of states for each of the plurality N of degrees of freedom is carried out by measuring corresponding state variables of the real system “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”;
b) selecting a degree of freedom f from the plurality N of degrees of freedom “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”;
c) determining a similarity Af between the at least one selected degree of freedom f and plurality of other degrees of freedom of the plurality N of degrees of freedom of the real system for the determined states “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”;
d) determining a selection Mf of degrees of freedom from the plurality N of degrees of freedom based on the similarity Af “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”; and
e) determining the state evolution for the at least one selected degree of freedom f based on the selection Mf of degrees of freedom “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”; and
g) generating a control variable [“mathematical concepts”] for controlling operation of the real system based on the determined state evolution [intended use].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites additional element of “receiving”. The additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No):
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions).
As per claims 2-6, 9-10, and 13-14, the claims fall into “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”.
As per claim 12, independent claim 12 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 15, and as such are similar rejected. Further, claim 12 recites additional elements of “a processor” and “a storage medium”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a storage medium” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-10, and 12-15 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Tang et al, (D. Tang, X. Sun, Q. Yue, Z. Shi, J. Feng, “Research of complex modal parameters extraction of a multi-degree-of freedom structure based on similarity search” pgs. 307-314, 2015) discloses pg. 309, left side column, “3. The modal parameters extraction based on similarity search” Assuming that the time series of the free response in each structure can be obtained by actual monitoring….. Eq. (17) has the specific physical meaning and ζn describes the attenuation characteristics of the vibration system, which is the damping ratio of the system. ωn corresponds to the natural frequency of the system and θn corresponds to the initial phase of the system. For a system which has N-DOF,φi and γji in Eq. (13) can be separated when extracting parameters for n-times. Because of the existence of γji each physical coordinate cannot reach equilibrium position and maximum position at the same time when vibrating; Abstract, a method for the extraction of modal parameters that could be useful for the parameter identification of complex structural dynamic modes of multi degree of freedom systems that may be subject to environmental load excitations; pg. 311, right side column, paragraph 1, The normalized time-domain wave forms and spectrums of the 1st,2nd and 3rd free vibration functions of the degree of freedom areshowninFig.2; pg. 308, left side column, In consideration of the identified problem mentioned above, a method of Multi-DOF structure complex modal parameter extraction based on similarity search is proposed in this paper. This method is based on the Multi-DOF complex modal theory of the general viscous system in which the most similar atoms with a free response structure are selected from the constructed dictionary so that the goal of identifying the modal parameters of the Multi-DOF structure has been achieved. The complex modal frequency, damping ratio and modal shape can be globally extracted by using this method with the measurement data of the Multi-DOF displacement. Furthermore, the initial phase has practical meaning for this method. The MP and the GA are borrowed into the method to perform the similarity comparison and reduce the time complexity of the search process. Simulation and experiment results show that the method proposed in this paper can identify the complex modal frequency, damping ratio and modal shape with high precision; pg. 309, left side column, “3. The modal parameters extraction based on similarity search”, .For as ystem which has N-DOF,φi and γji in Eq. (13) can be separated when extracting parameters for n-times. Because of the existence of γji each physical coordinate cannot reach equilibrium position and maximum position at the same time when vibrating. Principle mode is no longer a standing wave, but a traveling wave. Therefore, it may probably lead to modal deformation and associated distortions. The free response functions vary when ζn, ωn, and θn have different values. The modal parameters extraction based on similarity search is to search ζn, ωn and θn to let gnðt; ωn; ζn; θnÞ be the most similar atom with the signal acquired by RDT. The most similar gnðt;ωn;ζn;θnÞ is one free vibration attenuation function separated from the dictionary. The gnðt;ωn;ζn;θnÞ is removed from the RDT signal, the process is repeated, and the modal parameters are extracted. The MP is applied to the RDT sequence δxkxk ðtÞ for searching and extracting parameters. The principle of the most similar atoms is based on the dot product between atoms in the dictionary and δxkxk ðtÞ.
Montesinos et al (M. Montesinos, “Relational Evolution of the Degrees of Freedom of Generally Covariant Quantum Theories”, pgs. 1-28, 2001) discloses Abstract, We study the classical and quantum dynamics of generally covariant theories with vanishing Hamiltonian and with a finite number of degrees of freedom. In particular, the geometric meaning of the full solution of the relational evolution of the degrees of freedom is displayed, which means the determination of the total number of evolving constants of motion required. Also a method to find evolving constants is proposed. The generalized Heisenberg picture needs M time variables, as opposed to the Heisenberg picture of standard quantum mechanics where one time variable t is enough; pg. 7, First, they give the relational evolution of the coordinates qi and the momenta pi for any fixed point (˜qa, ˜ pa) of the physical phase space, i.e., it is possible to choose M coordinates denoted by qm (or momenta pm; or a combination of both) as ‘clocks’ and describe the evolution of the remaining set of coordinates and momenta as functions of the qm for any physical state (˜qa, ˜ pa) of the system. Second, if we fix the values of this M coordinates, say qm c q*m then, the before mentioned expressions of coordinates and momenta give M-parameter families of physical observables defined on gph, q*m being the parameters; pgs. 26-27, “5. Concluding Remarks”, We have displayed the full solution of the relational evolution of the degrees of freedom of fully constrained theories with a finite number of degrees of free dom (see Eqs. (19), and (20)). Our procedure follows from the embedding equations of the coordinates and momenta in the unconstrained phase space (see Eqs. (6), and (7)) plus the expressions of the M internal time variables (see Eqs. (6), and (7)) plus the expressions of the M internal time variables (see Eq. (10)). The form of the solution contains all the evolving constants of motion needed in the description of the classical dynamics of fully constrained theories,….. Combining the expressions of this evolving constants with the expressions of the physical observables the full relational evolution of the coordinates and momenta is obtained. Finally, we have also ana lysed on a general setting the quantum version of the relational evolution of the degrees of freedom of fully constrained theories.
LIU et al (US Publication No. 2021/0357555 A1) discloses [0885] SCA reduces the degrees of freedom to be solved by taking advantage of the mechanical response similarity of material points in a MVE. This similarity is found by clustering the field data of some mechanical response. Generally, deformation concentration tensor can be used.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “d) determining, via the one or more processors, a similarity (Af) between the at least one selected degree of freedom (f) and a plurality of other degrees of freedom of the plurality (N) of degrees of freedom by computing at least one of a cross-correlation metric or transinformation between the values of the states of the selected degree of freedom (f) and the values of the states of the plurality of other degrees of freedom, the values of the states being detected at different times up to the time (to);e) generating, via the one or more processors, a reduced subset (Mf) of degrees of freedom from the plurality (N) of degrees of freedom based on the similarity (Af), wherein the plurality of other degrees of freedom are sorted based on the similarity (Af), wherein the reduced subset (Mf) includes a predefined number (r) of degrees of freedom having greatest similarity to the selected degree of freedom (f);f) determining, via execution of a recurrent neural network, a state evolution for the selected degree of freedom (f) based on the reduced subset (Mf) of degrees of freedom” in combination with the remaining steps recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights