DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 5/2/2023. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
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 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are 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 1, line 12, the phrase “the other meshes” lacks antecedent support. Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. In addition:
Claim 2, line 2, the phrase “the set of coupled equations” was previously the “the set of coupled physics equations”. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claim 4, line 2, “the pressure drop” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 13, line 6, “the FEM solution” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 14, line 2, “the flow” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 15, “the equation” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 15, the variable “∇2” is not defined.
Claim 16, the variables Af, z, ρ, P, f, Dh, cp, and Q are not defined.
Claim 17, “the following equation” and “the numerical sign” lack antecedent support.
Claim 17, the variables P and c0 are not defined.
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 1-21 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 1: With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory category of process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method of physics simulation, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of coupled physics equations for a physics simulation, wherein the set of coupled physics equations has (i) a set of variables and (ii) boundary conditions that constrain the set of variables;
obtaining a plurality of meshes corresponding to the set of coupled physics equations, wherein each mesh is a lattice of discrete points in a multidimensional space corresponding to a respective subset of variables of the set of variables; and
iteratively solving for the boundary conditions that implicitly depend on the set of variables within the plurality of meshes to convergence to improve numerical stability of the physics simulation (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)), including:
solving for each variable in a first mesh of the plurality of meshes, while holding the other meshes to weak convergence criteria, to obtain a first solution (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
applying a solution for one or more variables in the first solution to resolve a second mesh of the plurality of the meshes, to obtain a second solution (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
generating a hierarchical polynomial based on the second solution, wherein the hierarchical polynomial (i) is a functional form of a pre-determined physics equation and (ii) includes one or more physics equations in an exponent (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)); and
computing new boundary conditions for resolving the plurality of meshes, using the hierarchical polynomial (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “obtaining a set of coupled physics equations for a physics simulation, wherein the set of coupled physics equations has (i) a set of variables and (ii) boundary conditions that constrain the set of variables” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)), “obtaining a plurality of meshes corresponding to the set of coupled physics equations, wherein each mesh is a lattice of discrete points in a multidimensional space corresponding to a respective subset of variables of the set of variables” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “obtaining a set of coupled physics equations for a physics simulation…” and “obtaining a plurality of meshes corresponding to the set of coupled physics equations, …” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-21.
Claims 2-17 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Regarding claims 18-21, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations:
“computer system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “programs”, and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)). When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do no more than automate the mathematical process, as recited in the judicial exception, using the computer components as a tooI. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computing components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome. The closest prior art of record teach:
US 2020/0387653 A1 (BWXT Advanced Technologies LLC) teaches wherein a method designs nuclear reactors using design variables and metric variables. A user specifies ranges for the design variables and threshold values for the metric variables and selects design parameter samples. For each sample, the method runs three processes, which compute metric variables for thermal-hydraulics, neutronics, and stress. The method applies a cost function to compute an aggregate residual of the metric variables compared to the threshold values. The method deploys optimization methods, either training a machine learning model using the samples and computed aggregate residuals, or using genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, or differential evolution. When using Bayesian optimization, the method shrinks the range for each design variable according to correlation between the respective design variable and estimated residuals using the machine learning model. These steps are repeated until a sample having a smallest residual is unchanged for multiple iterations. The final model assesses relative importance of each design variable (Abstract).
US 2021/0271793 A1 (BWXT Advanced Technologies LLC) teaches wherein a method is used to design nuclear reactors using design variables and metric variables. A user specifies ranges for the design variables and target values for the metric variables. A set of design parameter samples are selected. For each sample, the method runs three processes, which compute metric variables to thermal- hydraulics, neutronics, and stress. The method applies a cost function to each sample to compute an aggregate residual of the metric variables compared to the target values. The method trains a machine learning model using the samples and the computed aggregate residuals. The method shrinks the range for each design variable according to correlation between the respective design variable and estimated residuals using the machine learning model, These steps are repeated until a sample having a smallest residual is unchanged for multiple iterations. The method then uses the final machine learning model to assess relative importance of each design variable.
US 2011/0270593 A1 (Meuris et al.) teaches a method and apparatus for simulating fields especially electromagnetic fields, particularly useful in the context of analysis of interconnect structures (para [0003]), in another embodiment the method of the present Invention is embedded in an adaptive meshing strategy, Adaptive meshing is straightforward for n-dimensional meshes comprising n-dimensional elements whereby each element is defined by 2.sup.n nodes. Particularly adaptive meshing can be easily implemented for a two- dimensional mesh comprising rectangles (para [0253]), an interpolation function needs to be chosen in order to avoid overdetermination of the system of nodal equations: In other words: The coordinate systems A and B are matched by transition boundary conditions (para [0256]).
US 2019/0138675 A1 (Comsol AB) teaches wherein a system and method for implementing, on one or more processors, a bidirectional link between a design system and a multiphysics modeling system includes establishing via a communications link a connection between the design system and the multiphysics modeling system. Instructions are communicated via the communication link that include commands for generating a geometric representation in the design system based on parameters communicated from the multiphysics modeling system. One or more memory components can be configured to store a design system dynamic link library and a multiphysics modeling system dynamic link library. A controller can be operative to detect an installation of the design system, and implement via the dynamic link libraries, bidirectional communications of instructions between the design system and the multiphysics modeling system (Abstract), desirable features may include, for example, to have a computer-based system for solving complex multiphysics problems in which the settings for the physical properties and boundary conditions located in a memory and used to form multiphysics models and/or solve multiphysics problems can be accessed directly from the design system (para [0111]), a Finite Element Method (FEM) may be used. to solve for the PDEs together with, for example, adaptive meshing and a choice of a one or more different numerical solvers (para [0126]), conversion from general form to weak form is performed according to the formula, as shown in FIG. 42, where there is an implicit summation over the k and i indices in each product, and n is the space dimension (para [0480]).
However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 1)
“iteratively solving for the boundary conditions that implicitly depend on the set of variables within the plurality of meshes to convergence to improve numerical stability of the physics simulation, including:
solving for each variable in a first mesh of the plurality of meshes, while holding the other meshes to weak convergence criteria, to obtain a first solution;
applying a solution for one or more variables in the first solution to resolve a second mesh of the plurality of the meshes, to obtain a second solution;
generating a hierarchical polynomial based on the second solution, wherein the hierarchical polynomial (i) is a functional form of a pre-determined physics equation and (ii) includes one or more physics equations in an exponent; and
computing new boundary conditions for resolving the plurality of meshes, using the hierarchical polynomial”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
US 20230237226 A1: A method designs nuclear reactors using design variables and metric variables. A user specifies ranges for the design variables and threshold values for the metric variables and selects design parameter samples. For each sample, the method runs three processes, which compute metric variables for thermal-hydraulics, neutronics, and stress. The method applies a cost function to compute an aggregate residual of the metric variables compared to the threshold values. The method deploys optimization methods, either training a machine learning model using the samples and computed aggregate residuals, or using genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, or differential evolution. When using Bayesian optimization, the method shrinks the range for each design variable according to correlation between the respective design variable and estimated residuals using the machine learning model. These steps are repeated until a sample having a smallest residual is unchanged for multiple iterations. The final model assesses relative importance of each design variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights