DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/16/2023. Claims 1-16 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because page 9 line 15 recites “truck” where “trunk” was apparently intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because it recites “truck” where “trunk” was apparently intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in this application because portions of . Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims recite “efficiency/autonomy”, “control/autonomy,” or “identification/discovery.” It is unclear whether the “/” should be read as an “and” or an “or.” For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “form constraints to approximate multiphysics solutions” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “pretraining the neural network” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “pretraining the neural network” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
No, the limitation “pretraining the neural network” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “pretraining the neural network” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “using the pre-trained neural network [to form constraints]” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “two vectors from the branch sub-net and the trunk sub-net are merged together via a dot product to obtain an output function value” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 4:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 7:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 8:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 9:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils, solar thermal systems, VIV, material damage, path planning, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, structural health monitoring and infiltration” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils, solar thermal systems, VIV, material damage, path planning, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, structural health monitoring and infiltration” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 10:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils, electro-convection and path planning” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils, electro-convection and path planning” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the identification/discovery applications include VIV, material damage and electro-convention” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the identification/discovery applications include VIV, material damage and electro-convention” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional elements, taken alone or in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of copending Application 18/275,897 in view of Kasabov (US 2016/0210552 A1).
As to independent claim 1, 18/275,897 teaches a data assimilation method comprising:
providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs (“constructing two sub-networks to encode input functions and space-time variables separately; and merging the two constructed sub-networks together to compute output functions that depend on space time,” claim 1); and
using the neural network to form constraints to approximate multiphysics (“multiphysics,” claim 3) solutions (“predicting a time and a space of a state of a system,” claim 4).
18/275,897 does not appear to expressly teach a method comprising pretraining the neural network.
Kasabov teaches a method comprising pretraining the neural network (“training the spiking neural network reservoir to learn the spike sequences,” paragraph 0013 lines 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of 18/275,897 to comprise the pretraining of Kasabov. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely pretraining the neural network (“training the spiking neural network reservoir to learn the spike sequences,” Kasabov paragraph 0013 lines 1-2). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of copending Application 18/275,897 in view of Kasabov and Ding et al. (“Trunk-Branch Ensemble Convolutional Neural Networks for Video-based Face Recognition,” 17 May 2017, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.05427, https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05427, hereinafter Ding).
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov further teaches a method wherein the neural network comprises: a sub-network for encoding the input function (“constructing two sub-networks to encode input functions and space-time variables separately,” 18/275,897 claim 1); and a sub-net for encoding output functions (“constructing two sub-networks to encode input functions and space-time variables separately,” 18/275,897 claim 1).
18/275,897/Kasabov does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the neural network comprises: a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors; and a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions.
Ding teaches a method wherein the neural network comprises: a branch sub-network; and a truck sub-net (“Multiple branch structures are possible, for example all the outputs can share the same branch, or only two of them, as in FIG. 24C,” paragraph 0114 lines 10-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of 18/275,897/Kasabov to comprise the trunk-branch architecture of Ding. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely a trunk-branch architecture (“Multiple branch structures are possible, for example all the outputs can share the same branch, or only two of them, as in FIG. 24C,” Ding paragraph 0114 lines 10-12). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 3-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claims of copending Application 18/275,897 in view of Kasabov, Ding, and Dreyer et al. (US 2019/0079903 A1, hereinafter Dreyer).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding further teaches a method wherein two vectors from the branch sub-net and the trunk sub-net are merged together to obtain an output function value (“constructing two sub-networks to encode input functions and space-time variables separately; and merging the two constructed sub-networks together to compute output functions that depend on space time,” 18/275,897 claim 1).
18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein two vectors are merged together via a dot product.
Dreyer teaches a method wherein two vectors are merged together via a dot product (“as shown in FIG. 4, each element E of the elements 404(0)-404(15) (where 0≤E<16) of the output vector 406 is calculated as a dot product of the plurality of elements of the vector 308 corresponding to a row of the submatrix 304 indicated by a quotient of E divided by RA and a column of the submatrix 306 indicated by a remainder of E divided by Ca,” paragraph 0034 lines 20-27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vectors of 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding to comprise the dot product of Dreyer. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely merging the vectors via a dot product (“as shown in FIG. 4, each element E of the elements 404(0)-404(15) (where 0≤E<16) of the output vector 406 is calculated as a dot product of the plurality of elements of the vector 308 corresponding to a row of the submatrix 304 indicated by a quotient of E divided by RA and a column of the submatrix 306 indicated by a remainder of E divided by Ca,” Dreyer paragraph 0034 lines 20-27). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting, the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system,” 18/275,897 claim 4).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system,” 18/275,897 claim 5).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy,” 18/275,897 claim 6).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics,” 18/275,897 claim 7).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications,” 18/275,897 claim 8).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils, solar thermal systems, VIV, material damage, path planning, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, structural health monitoring and infiltration (“wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils, solar thermal systems, VIV, material damage, path planning, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, structural health monitoring and infiltration,” 18/275,897 claim 9).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications,” 18/275,897 claim 10).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring (“wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring,” 18/275,897 claim 11).
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications,” 18/275,897 claim 12).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils, electro-convection and path planning (“wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils, electro-convection and path planning,” 18/275,897 claim 13).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications,” 18/275,897 claim 14).
As to dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the identification/discovery applications include VIV, material damage and electro-convention (“wherein the identification/discovery applications include VIV, material damage and electro-convention,” 18/275,897 claim 15).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. 18/275,897/Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications (“wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications,” 18/275,897 claim 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasabov.
As to independent claim 1, Kasabov discloses a data assimilation method comprising:
providing a neural network that encodes input functions and space-time variables as inputs (“The system comprises: a spike-time encoding module to encode continuous value input information into spike trains, a recurrent 3D SNNr and an eSNN as an output classification module. This system may be applied to spatio-temporal pattern recognition (STPR) and early prediction of events,” paragraph 0114 lines 6-11);
pretraining the neural network (“training the spiking neural network reservoir to learn the spike sequences,” paragraph 0013 lines 1-2); and
using the pre-trained neural network to form constraints to approximate multiphysics (“The present invention can be used to predict early events in many applications, for example engineering (surveillance for crime prediction and prevention; cyber security), bioinformatics (gene expression and protein folding), neuroinformatics (EEG, fMRI) and its application for Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) neurorehabilitation, predicting response to treatment of neurological disease; predicting progression of brain disease, such as Alzheimer's Disease; ecology (predicting establishment of species), environment (predicting global warming process), medicine (patients risk of disease or recovery over time), and economics (financial time series, macroeconomics), among others,” paragraph 0113 lines 1-12) solutions (“This system may be applied to spatio-temporal pattern recognition (STPR) and early prediction of events,” paragraph 0114 lines 9-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasabov in view of Ding.
As to dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Kasabov does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the neural network comprises: a branch sub-network for encoding the input function at a fixed number of sensors; and a truck sub-net for encoding locations for output functions.
Ding teaches a method wherein the neural network comprises: a branch sub-network; and a truck sub-net (“Multiple branch structures are possible, for example all the outputs can share the same branch, or only two of them, as in FIG. 24C,” paragraph 0114 lines 10-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of Kasabov to comprise the trunk-branch architecture of Ding. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely a trunk-branch architecture (“Multiple branch structures are possible, for example all the outputs can share the same branch, or only two of them, as in FIG. 24C,” Ding paragraph 0114 lines 10-12). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 3-8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasabov in view of Ding and Dreyer.
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Kasabov/Ding does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein two vectors from the branch sub-net and the trunk sub-net are merged together via a dot product to obtain an output function value.
Dreyer teaches a method wherein two vectors from the branch sub-net and the trunk sub-net are merged together via a dot product to obtain an output function value (“as shown in FIG. 4, each element E of the elements 404(0)-404(15) (where 0≤E<16) of the output vector 406 is calculated as a dot product of the plurality of elements of the vector 308 corresponding to a row of the submatrix 304 indicated by a quotient of E divided by RA and a column of the submatrix 306 indicated by a remainder of E divided by Ca,” paragraph 0034 lines 20-27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vectors of Kasabov/Ding to comprise the dot product of Dreyer. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely merging the vectors (“as shown in FIG. 4, each element E of the elements 404(0)-404(15) (where 0≤E<16) of the output vector 406 is calculated as a dot product of the plurality of elements of the vector 308 corresponding to a row of the submatrix 304 indicated by a quotient of E divided by RA and a column of the submatrix 306 indicated by a remainder of E divided by Ca,” Dreyer paragraph 0034 lines 20-27). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting (“This system may be applied to spatio-temporal pattern recognition (STPR) and early prediction of events,” Kasabov paragraph 0114 lines 9-11), the forecasting comprising predicting a time and a space of a state of a system (“After a whole input pattern is entered (and learned) in the SNNr, the dynamic state of the SNNr can be measured and an output classifier can be trained to recognise this state in a predefined output class for this input pattern,” Kasabov paragraph 0121 lines 7-10).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system (“optimise iteratively the features, the neighbourhood and the parameters of the PMeSNNr using a personalised optimisation procedure from [1] or otherwise known in the art to achieve a maximum accuracy for an earliest possible time of prediction,” Kasabov paragraph 0117 lines 20-24; “A small drift of a synaptic weight can be used to increase the weight if there is a spike or decrease it if there is no spike at each of time moments of simulation,” Kasabov paragraph 0147 lines 7-10).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy (Kasabov paragraphs 0113-0114, 0216).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics (“The proposed input variable allocation/mapping method would make the SNNr interpretable for new knowledge discovery and would lead to a significantly better accuracy of classification or prediction of events as demonstrated in the methods proposed in embodiments of the invention for stroke event prediction and ecological event prediction,” Kasabov paragraph 0166 lines 1-6).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications (“The present invention can be used to predict early events in many applications, for example engineering (surveillance for crime prediction and prevention; cyber security), bioinformatics (gene expression and protein folding), neuroinformatics (EEG, fMRI) and its application for Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI) neurorehabilitation, predicting response to treatment of neurological disease; predicting progression of brain disease, such as Alzheimer's Disease; ecology (predicting establishment of species), environment (predicting global warming process), medicine (patients risk of disease or recovery over time), and economics (financial time series, macroeconomics), among others,” Kasabov paragraph 0113 lines 1-12).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications (Kasabov paragraphs 0113-0114).
As to dependent claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications (Kasabov paragraphs 0113-0114, 0216).
As to dependent claim 14, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer further teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications (“The proposed input variable allocation/mapping method would make the SNNr interpretable for new knowledge discovery and would lead to a significantly better accuracy of classification or prediction of events as demonstrated in the methods proposed in embodiments of the invention for stroke event prediction and ecological event prediction,” Kasabov paragraph 0166 lines 1-6).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasabov in view of Ding, Dreyer, and Das et al. (US 2020/0269322 A1, hereinafter Das).
As to dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring.
Das teaches a method wherein the design applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” paragraph 0213 lines 11-13), material damage and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” paragraph 0139 lines 14-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer to comprise the design applications of Das. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely design applications including airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” Das paragraph 0213 lines 11-13), material damage and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” Das paragraph 0139 lines 14-17). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasabov in view of Ding, Dreyer, Das, and Han et al. (US 2020/0308028 A1, hereinafter Han).
As to dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils.
Das teaches a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” paragraph 0213 lines 11-13), material damage and structural health monitoring (“The use of this mid-range microstructure tracking and analysis program can be used to find the optimal settings for every new material, microstructure layout, deposit height, sample size, etc.,” paragraph 0139 lines 14-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer to comprise the airfoils of Das. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely control/autonomy applications include airfoils (“airfoil like designs can be created on rectangular coupons and, finally, on airfoil shaped coupons,” Das paragraph 0213 lines 11-13). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer/Das does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include electro-convection and path planning.
Han teaches a method wherein the control/autonomy applications include electro-convection and path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” paragraph 0152 lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer/Das to comprise the control/autonomy applications of Han. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely control/autonomy applications including electro-convection and path planning (“A novel return flow (RF) electromembrane desalination process was developed where direct control of flow path effectively limits the growth of ion depletion region,” Han paragraph 0152 lines 1-3). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasabov in view of Ding, Dreyer, and TenHouten et al. (US 2020/0114573 A1, hereinafter TenHouten).
As to dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications.
TenHouten teaches a method wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications (“the face sheets are produced using resin transfer molding (RTM),” paragraph 0121 lines 12-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neural network of Kasabov/Ding/Dreyer to comprise the resin transfer molding of TenHouten. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known software development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications (“the face sheets are produced using resin transfer molding (RTM),” TenHouten paragraph 0121 lines 12-13). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2022/0012853 A1 disclosing machine learning for multiphysics
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights