DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 16 June 2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 2 appears to be missing an ‘and’ as before the last clause.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 as follows: “a coupled heterogeneous oscillator system, and a splay sate is generated”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 2 as follows: “formula (10); and (S7) solving”.
Claim 2 step (S2) recites “system is consisted of the phase synchronization” which appears to be typographic error for “system consisting of the phase synchronization”.
Claim 2 (S6) formula (6) includes “
t
T
” which appears to be typographic error for “
t
T
” to use the standard symbol indicative of upward rounding.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Irregularities
Claim 2 includes a number of phrases and grammatical constructions which do not clearly represent clear typographic error, may be the inadvertent result of translation irregularities. Examiner suggests Applicant review and double check the following phrases:
(S3) “and a rest identical oscillators” might be intended to be “and the remaining identical oscillators”.
(S3) use of ‘however’ and ‘meanwhile’.
(S3) “state, that is,”
(S3) “is obtained theoretically”
(S6) “amplitude, that is,”
(S7) “the above is a theoretical analysis of main amplitude parameters, the mean value, and the period of the amplitude envelope.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, claim 2 step (S3) recites “applying a polar coordinate transformation and a perturbation analysis … is obtained theoretically.” Applying the polar coordinate transformation is a theoretical derivation step narrating how a final result is obtained patent claims are generally concerned only with the final result or final set of method steps to perform. The disclosure of the Specification describes any derivation necessary to understand the claims. Here, transforming the Ginzburg-Landau oscillator models into polar coordinates removes the Ginzburg-Landau models previously recited. MPEP §608.01(i) cites 37 C.F.R. 1.75 including:
(e) Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement, any independent claim should contain in the following order:(1) A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,(2) A phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises," and(3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
If claim 2 is intended as a recitation of a claim written in the form of an improvement over the Ginzburg-Landau oscillator model then the phrase “wherein the improvement comprises,” may be appropriate.
Claim 2 step (S1), recites “state variable Zi(t)=xi(t)+j yi(t)” but the symbols x and y are not defined. Using undefined symbols in an equation is indefinite.
Claim 2 step (S1), recites “, time series of the coupled oscillators are in the splay state under a repulsive coupling (
ε
<
0
);”. This phrase is grammatically unclear regarding the relationship with the previously recited splay states of claim 1. The section has inconsistent use of comma and semi-colon making the list unclear about which statements are grammatically tied to the preposition “in the formula (1),” and which are separately recited. Relatedly, if any statement within this section is considered separately recited they are missing transitional phrases such as “wherein” or “where” and instead have ambiguous comma splices. Furthermore, the time series are undefined. It is grammatically unclear whether this statement is reciting a characteristic which necessarily exists when there is repulsive coupling or if the statement is a required condition imposed as a limitation of the claim. Is the property of “are in the splay state” a required input condition of the system model or is the property an output result of constructing the system model according to formula (1)?
Claim 2 step (S2), the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 step (S4), the phrase “a small amplitude envelope modulated in the time series is regarded as a small perturbation.” The term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 step (S4), the phrase “a small amplitude envelope modulated in the time series is regarded as a small perturbation.” The phrase “the time series” therein has unclear antecedent basis as more than one time series has been previously recited.
Claim 2 step (S4), the phrase “a small amplitude envelope modulated in the time series is regarded as a small perturbation.” Furthermore, the phrase “is regarded as” is exemplary language. The phrase "is regarded as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. An implementation of a splay state based on amplitude envelopes, comprising:
determining a non-phase-locking parameter region by numerically calculating a phase difference between an introduced heterogeneous oscillator and identical oscillators in coupled oscillators;
selecting a frequency mismatch and a repulsive coupling strength in the non-phase-locking parameter region for a coupled heterogeneous oscillator system,
a splay state is generated among the amplitude envelopes between the identical oscillators except the introduced heterogeneous oscillator.
Determining a non-phase locking region by calculating a phase difference is performing the mathematical calculation of the phase difference.
Selecting a frequency mismatch and repulsive coupling strength in this context correspond to determining respective numerical values for the mathematical calculations.
Generating a splay state corresponds with solving respective mathematical systems as the term “splay state” is mathematically defined by the phase-locking relationship. Generating a mathematically defined state is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim 2 recites a mathematical algorithm comprising seven steps and seventeen explicitly recited formulae. Each explicitly recited formula is a recited mathematical equation.
Claim 2 algorithms steps include:
(S1): constructing N global coupled Ginzburg-Landau oscillator models; …
(S2): when a heterogeneous parameter is introduced into an oscillator in the formula (1) of (S1), …;
(S3): selecting parameters in the non-phase-locking parameter region obtained in (S2), a first heterogeneous oscillator and a rest identical oscillators in a first coupled heterogeneous oscillator system are in a non-phase-locking state; …; detailed methods of solving the average amplitude, the amplitude, and the period of the amplitude envelopes in the splay state includes the following steps:
(S4): assuming
Z
˙
i
t
=
ρ
i
t
e
j
θ
i
t
i
=
1,2
,
3
,
…
,
N
,
N
≥
3
and converting the formula (1) into polar coordinates, …;
(S5): an amplitude of the i-th oscillator in a second coupled heterogeneous oscillator system is expressed as
ρ
i
t
=
a
+
r
~
i
t
i=1, 2, …, N, and substituting the amplitude of the i-th oscillator in … formula (3)
(S6): solving the phase difference between the coupled oscillators; …
(S7): solving an envelope evolution formula …
the above is a theoretical analysis of main amplitude parameters, the mean value, and the period of the amplitude envelope.
While only summarized here, the entirety of claim 2 is clearly explicitly recited mathematical subject matter. To highlight a few key phrases “substituting” and “solving” are explicitly mathematical.
Furthermore, the claim itself summarizes “the above is a theoretical analysis of main amplitude parameters, the mean value, and the period of the amplitude envelope.” A theoretical analysis corresponds with a mathematical concept and thus further corroborates Examiner’s finding that claim 2 recites an abstract idea in the category of mathematical concepts.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Teichmann, E. & Rosenblum, M. “Solitary States and Partial Synchrony in Oscillatory Ensembles with Attractive and Repulsive Interactions” arXiv:1907.02785v1 (2019) [herein “Teichmann”].
Claim 1 recites “1. An implementation of a splay state based on amplitude envelopes.” Teichmann title discloses “Solitary States and Partial Synchrony in Oscillatory Ensembles with Attractive and Repulsive Interactions.” The states of the oscillatory ensembles correspond with states of the oscillatory system.
Teichmann page 6 last paragraph discloses “the system (4,5,6) admits splay state solutions.” Splay state solutions correspond to splay states based on respective amplitude system equations (4,5,6).
Claim 1 further recites “comprising: determining a non-phase-locking parameter region by numerically calculating a phase difference between an introduced heterogeneous oscillator and identical oscillators in coupled oscillators.” Teichmann page 2 section II lines 1-2 disclose “a system of M interacting groups of identical units.” The identical units correspond with identical oscillators. The respective oscillators are heterogenous between different groups.
Teichmann page 2 equation (1) includes “
θ
k
σ
'
-
θ
j
σ
” which corresponds with a phase difference between oscillators. Teichmann page 2 describes equation to including disclosing “the strength of the coupling and the phase shift characterizing interaction between groups.” The phase difference part of the equation shows the model is non-phase-locking for those parameters.
Accordingly, Teichmann section II model teaches numerical modeling of such an oscillator system.
Claim 1 further recites “selecting a frequency mismatch and a repulsive coupling strength in the non-phase-locking parameter region for a coupled heterogeneous oscillator system.” Teichmann page 2 equation (1) includes “
θ
k
σ
'
-
θ
j
σ
” which corresponds with a phase difference between oscillators. Teichmann page 2 describes equation to including disclosing “the strength of the coupling and the phase shift characterizing interaction between groups.” The coupling corresponds with a coupling. Teichmann page 2 equation 2 is described as “subscripts a and r stand for ‘attractive’ and ‘repulsive’, respectively.” The respective strength of repulsive coupling corresponds with a repulsive coupling strength of the oscillator system.
Claim 1 further recites “a splay state is generated among the amplitude envelopes between the identical oscillators except the introduced heterogeneous oscillator.” Teichmann page 6 last paragraph discloses “the system (4,5,6) admits splay state solutions.” Splay state solutions correspond with generated splay states.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Teichmann, E. & Rosenblum, M. “Solitary States and Partial Synchrony in Oscillatory Ensembles with Attractive and Repulsive Interactions” arXiv:1907.02785v1 (2019) [herein “Teichmann”] page 4 second paragraph teaches The perturbed oscillators then evolve according to
ψ
±
=
ω
+
h
sin
Φ
0
-
ψ
0
∓
α
.” Teichmann fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Hakim, V. & Rappel, W.J. “Dynamics of the globally coupled complex Ginzburg-Landau equation” Physical Review A, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. R7347-R7350 (1992) [herein “Hakim”] teaches the Ginzburg-Landau equation with N identical coupled oscillators. Hakim fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Gonzalez-Miranda, J.M. “Amplitude envelope synchronization in coupled chaotic oscillators” Physical Review E, vol. 65, 036232 (2002) [herein “Gonzalez-Miranda”] section II teaches amplitude envelope synchronization. Gonzalez-Miranda section IV teaches amplitude envelope synchronization (AES) and phase synchronization (PS) combined. Gonzalez-Miranda fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Kovaleva, A. Control of autoresonance in mechanical and physical models” Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A, 375: 20160213 (2017) [herein “Kovaleva”] page 3 teaches governing equations of “Duffing oscillator subjected to a periodic excitation.” Kovaleva fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Berner, R., et al. “Multi-Clusters in Networks of Adaptively Coupled Phase Oscillators” arXiv:1809.00573v3 (2019) [herein “Berner”] considers “network of N coupled phase oscillators with adaptive coupling.” Berner page 4 definition 2.3 defines a “splay cluster” of a phase oscillator group. Berne section 4 discusses multi-cluster solutions for adaptively coupled phase oscillators. Berner fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Berner, R., et al. “Generalized splay states in phase oscillator networks” arXiv:2105.06694v2 (July 2021) [herein “Berner2”] abstract teaches “generalized m-splay states constituting a special subclass of phase-locked states with vanishing mth order parameter.” Berner2 fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
Ferrante, F. & Wang, Y. “Robust Almost Global Splay State Stabilization of Pulse Coupled Oscillators” arXiv:1908.00968v2 (April 2021) [herein “Ferrante”] teaches splay state stabilization of pulse coupled oscillators. Ferrante page 7 last paragraph teaches “small frequency perturbation on the dynamics.” Ferrante fails to teach formulas (11) and (12) as claimed.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “(S7): solving an envelope evolution formula
ρ
i
t
, i=1,2,...,N; by introducing the formula (4) and the formula (7) into the formula (3), an evolution formula of a perturbation is obtained as follows:
r
~
i
'
t
=
-
N
ε
a
-
2
a
+
N
-
1
r
~
i
t
-
3
a
r
~
i
2
t
+
ε
a
cos
∆
ω
t
formula (11) solving the formula (11) to obtain a solution of the perturbation
r
~
i
t
=
s
i
-
a
ε
∆
ω
2
+
4
a
2
-
4
2
N
+
1
a
ε
+
N
-
1
2
ε
2
cos
∆
ω
t
+
φ
0
, i=2,3, ..., N, formula (12)” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights