DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Regarding §101:
Applicant remarks page 11 argues:
Claim 1 does not recite any mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. Applicant concedes that Claim 1 requires use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations in order to be infringed, but Claim 1 does not recite any specific mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations and thus is not an attempt to patent the mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations themselves. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not directed on its own to a mathematical concept.
This argument is unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites all three of mathematical relationships, equations, and calculations.
Claim 1 recites “determining boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by: computing …, a generalized wall-boundary condition from fluid flow variables, a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space.”
A k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model is a reference to a particular system of equations. Reference this system of equations by name, in prose, is nonetheless still a recitation of mathematical equations. Computing a value from variables as recited is a recitation of performing those particular computations. These computations are a recitation of mathematical calculation. Lastly, the equations of the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model define a mathematical relationship with the “specific energy dissipation rate.” Accordingly, calculating the value of specific energy dissipation rate which is valid for the system of equations of the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model is a recitation of the particular mathematical relationships involved therewith. The recitation of mathematical relationship is redundant with the previously identified mathematical equations and mathematical calculation, but as a combined overall analysis of the claim as a whole, it further supports Examiner’s finding that the identified limitations of the mathematical concept in the §101 analysis is correct.
Applicant remarks page 12 further argues:
Claim 1 does not recite a mathematical formula, expression, or correlation and thus is not directed per se to a mathematical concept. Nor does Claim 1 merely use mathematical formulas for performing calculations and manipulating the results.
This argument is unpersuasive. As discussed immediately above, claim 1 recites mathematical formulae, mathematical calculation, and corresponding mathematical relationships. Using prose to recite the system of mathematical equations (e.g. k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model) does not change the mathematical nature of this claim recitation.
Specification page 1 lines 9-10 state “the so called SST k-Omega turbulence model, a widely used turbulence model, which solves two partial differential equations (k) and (Omega).” Each partial differential equation is an equation. The k-Omega turbulence models referring to a family of models does not alter the mathematical nature or definition of the specific equations or the generalized mathematical relationship of this family of mathematical models.
Applicant remarks page 12 argues:
Claim 1 does not seek to protect any mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or mathematical equations, or mathematical calculations. Claim 1 is only directed to computational fluid dynamic simulation. Claim 1 merely involves application of unspecified mathematical equations to solve a fundamental problem in computational fluid dynamic simulations.
This argument is unpersuasive.
As discussed above, claim 1 does recite specified mathematical equations of the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model(s).
Applicant remarks page 12-13 argues:
Amended Claim 1 now recites, among other features: "a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer, and simulation results of the simulated fluid flow are independent of the resolutions of the plural cells."
This feature sets the framework for how the so called abstract idea would be executed on the computer in order to practice the claimed method of "simulating fluid flow about a physical object." This feature requires that the mesh that represents a physical object being simulated in the simulation space have its first cell away from the boundary be within the buffer layer. This feature is nonconventional and moreover does not recite any specific mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, mathematical equations, or mathematical calculations.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The claim reciting a limitation which is itself not identified as a recitation of the abstract idea itself is a minimum requirement for analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B of the §101 analysis. It is not sufficient by itself to show a claim is eligible subject matter under §101. As discussed above, claim 1 elsewhere recites the identified mathematical concept.
Here, the simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Applicant remarks page 13 argues:
Claim 1 as a whole, including this feature, provides an improvement to the technology of turbulent computational fluid dynamic simulations and improves the functioning of the computer.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Computing solutions to the turbulent fluid dynamic mathematical models is itself the identified mathematical concept. Improvements to a mathematical concept itself are not subject matter eligible under §101.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific operations of any specific computer hardware. Therefore claim 1 cannot be considered as directed towards any improvement in the functioning of a computer.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 12, and 17 have been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's objection(s) to the claim(s) are withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for simulating fluid flow about a simulated physical object, the method comprising:
…
determining boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by:
computing by the one or more computing systems, a generalized wall-boundary condition from fluid flow variables, a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space,
Simulating fluid flow in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space of the plurality of cells is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving by one or more computing systems, a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
…
wherein a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer, and simulation results of the simulated fluid flow are independent of the resolutions of the plural cells.
The “computing systems” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
receiving by one or more computing systems, a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1 wherein for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, the method further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.
The buffer layer correction factor is explicitly mathematical in light of the Specification. See generally Specification page 3 line 16 to page 4 line 2. While the correction factor recited in claim 2 is not limited to the specific equation of claim 3, the claim phrase “buffer layer correction factor” is read in light of the Specification and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “correction factor” to refer to a mathematical correction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the boundary conditions further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a buffer layer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate for a cell located at a position y+<3 of the boundary where y is a cell at the boundary, and the correction factor is given according to:
ω
H
y
b
'
=
f
b
l
e
n
d
ω
H
y
b
where
ω
H
y
b
'
is the correction factor
f
b
l
e
n
d
is a blending function and
ω
H
y
b
is a viscous layer correction function.
The correction factor defined here is an explicit mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate.
The viscous sublayer correction factor is explicitly mathematical in light of the Specification. See generally Specification page 3 line 16 to page 4 line 2. While the correction factor recited in claim 4 is not limited to the specific equation of claim 5, the claim phrase “viscous sublayer correction factor” is read in light of the Specification and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “correction factor” to refer to a mathematical correction.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 1 wherein determining the boundary conditions further comprises:
applying by the one or more computing systems, a viscous sublayer correction factor as a boundary condition for the energy dissipation rate, with the viscous sublayer correction factor given according to:
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
=
∂
ω
v
d
∂
y
y
1
2
y
2
2
y
2
+
y
1
2
4
where
∂
ω
v
f
∂
y
is the correction factor,
y
1
2
is a cell at location 1 and
y
2
2
is the cell at position 2.
The correction factor defined here is an explicit mathematical equation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, and 19 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing the k-Omega model;
initializing the accessed k-Omega model with the determined boundary conditions; and
executing the initialized k-Omega model to simulated the fluid flow about the simulated physical object.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations. Accessing, initializing, and executing a mathematical model to perform the respective mathematical calculations of the simulation is a recitation to perform these mathematical calculations.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: accessing the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, with the k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model, including
a first partial differential equation to determine turbulent kinetic energy of the fluid flow; and
a second partial differential equation to determine the specific energy dissipation rate of the fluid flow in the simulation space.
A partial differential equation is a mathematical equation. An explicit claim of “a partial differential” equation is a recitation of a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the location is at a buffer layer; and when at the buffer layer,
applying a correction that increase the values of energy dissipation rate only at the buffer layer by:
applying a blending function that acts on the values of energy dissipation rate at the buffer layer and prevents the blending function to affect values at the viscous layer of the boundary defined in the simulation space.
The buffer layer is mathematically defined. See Specification page 6 lines 17-18 stating “a buffer layer that is neither the viscous sublayer nor the fully turbulent logarithmic region and is typically defined by 5< y+ < 25.” Accordingly, determining whether the location is at a buffer layer is a determination of a mathematical condition.
Applying a correction by applying a blending function is applying a respective mathematical function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “blending function” is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 9 wherein applying the correction further comprises:
applying a blending function that acts on the values of energy dissipation rate at the buffer layer and prevents the blending function to affect values at the viscous layer of the boundary defined in the simulation space.
Applying a blending function is applying a respective mathematical function to the respective numerical values. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “blending function” is a mathematical function.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. A system for simulating a physical process flow about a simulated physical object, the system comprising:
…
determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to:
compute from fluid flow variables a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space,
Simulating flow in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space of the plurality of cells is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
one or more processor devices;
memory operatively coupled to the one or more processor devices;
storage media storing a computer program comprising instructions to cause the system to:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
…
wherein a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer, and simulation results of the simulated fluid flow are independent of the resolutions of the plural cells.
The “processor,” “memory,” and “storage media” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage medium performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitation analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. A computer program product for simulating a physical process, …
…
determine boundary conditions for a specific energy dissipation rate of a k-Omega turbulence fluid flow model of the simulated fluid flow, by instructions to cause the system to:
compute from fluid flow variables a value of the specific energy dissipation rate for a turbulent flow that is valid for a viscous layer, buffer layer, and logarithmic region of a boundary defined in the simulation space,
Simulating physical process in this context means computing respective mathematical calculations of the model equations.
A k-omega turbulence fluid flow model is a mathematical model and defined by respective mathematical equations.
Computing a numerical value of specific energy dissipation rate in the simulation space of the plurality of cells is computing the mathematical calculations of the mathematical model.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
the computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program product comprising instructions to cause a system to:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
…
wherein a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer, and simulation results of the simulated fluid flow are independent of the resolutions of the plural cells.
The “computer program product” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic storage medium performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
The simulation space model corresponds with the mathematical framework defining respective numerical values. Specification page 8 line 11 states “The mesh comprises or divides the simulation space into plural cells.” Specification page 16 lines 14-15 state “The 15 solution of Eq. 26 requires enforcing Eq. 30 at the first cell away from the wall Y1, (FIG. 8).” Accordingly, the cell definition defines numerical values required for computation of these respective mathematical equations. Therefore, receiving the model of the simulation space is at best a necessary data input for the identified mathematical concept (MPEP §2106.05(g)) if not considered part of the mathematical construction itself.
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitation analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
receive a model of a simulation space that includes a mesh defining a representation of the physical object in the simulation space, with the mesh comprising plural cells having resolutions to account for surfaces of the physical object;
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides the example “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” as elements that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. Here, the claimed receiving is even broader and is not even limited to a network. Accordingly, the instant limitation is even more abstract than the example from the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s remarks filed 22 June 2026 page 14 argues “Matyushenko also does not discuss the location of the first cell away from the boundary. Similarly, Mani does not discuss the location of the first cell away from the boundary nor whether simulation results are independent of the resolutions of the cells.” This argument is persuasive.
Matyushenko, A.A. & Garbaruk, A.V. “Non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model” Int'l Conf. Physics, J Physics, 929 (2017) [herein “Matyushenko”] teaches a non-linear correction for the k-ω SST turbulence model which involves primarily a stress tensor and strain rate tensor correction derived from WJ-BSL-EARSM. Matyushenko fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
US patent 10,366,182 B2 Mani, et al. [herein “Mani”] column 8 lines 1-4 teaches “This finding of examples disclosed herein suggests that the Lai-So model can be tuned to improve (e.g., better) performance with Menter's SST turbulence model.” Mani fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
Hunsaker, D.F., et al. “Smooth-Wall Boundary Conditions for Dissipation-Based Turbulence Models” 48th AIA A Aerospace Sciences Meeting (2010) [herein “Hunsaker”] page 5 teaches “Boussinesq-based turbulent-energy-transport equation.” Hunsaker page 5 discloses “These wall damping functions are simply empirical corrections that are added to force the model to agree more closely with experimental data.” Hunsaker fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
Menter, F. “Improved Two-Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows” NASA Technical Memorandum, 103975 (1992) [herein “Menter”] page 2 teaches “All low Reynolds number k-ε models employ damping functions in one form or another in the sublayer.” Menter page 19 teaches “most of the computations at the time have been performed on comparatively coarse grids and there is substantial evidence that significantly finer grids have to be used in order to obtain grid-independent results.” Menter fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
Coakley, T.J. “Turbulence Modeling Methods for the Compressible Navier-Stokes Equations” AIA A-83-1693 (1983) [herein “Coakley”]] teaches extensive technology background of different Navier-Stokes formulations. In particular, Coakley page 3 right column teaches the “Jones-Launder (k-ε) model” including a damping term D. Coakley fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
Lacombe, F., et al. “Compatible wall functions and adaptive remeshing for the
κ
-
ω
SST model” AIA A SciTech Forum (Jan. 2019) [herein “Lacombe”] abstract teaches “SST model blending functions (f1 and f2).” Lacombe page 6 section C “Adaptive mesh refinement” teaches “we chose to adapt the solution according to the velocity field (energy norm), the turbulence variables k,
ω
and
μ
T
as well as the
κ
-
ω
SST blending functions f1 and f2. The choice of including f1 and f2 in the mesh refinement strategy was initially motivated by numerical convergence difficulties.” Lacombe pages 13-14 figures 9 and 10 show the adaptively refined mesh. Lacombe fails to teach a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “wherein a first cell of the plural cells of the mesh away from the boundary is positioned in the buffer layer” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 14 August 2026
Prosecution Insights