DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
In line 1 it is unclear what constitutes a “sever accident in a nuclear reactor”.
Throughout claim 1 it is unclear what constitutes a “severe accident”. The term “severe” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. The dividing boundary between “severe” and non-severe is undefined and unclear. Perhaps “severe” should be replaced with “core meltdown”.
The step 1 phrase “constructing a particle geometry model” is unclear. It is unclear what the model is for. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “constructing a particle geometry model for a nuclear fuel element”.
Some of the steps 1-7 appear to have plural methods therein. Step 1 will be used as an example. Step 1 appears to have plural distinct steps of “constructing”, “setting particle”, and “setting boundary”. Thus, the use of “step 1”, which implies a single step, appears inaccurate and unclear. It is unclear whether “setting particle” and “setting boundary” are part of the “constructing”. It is unclear whether “setting particle” and “setting boundary” should be preceded by “wherein constructing the model includes”. Similar analogy is herein applied to other unclear steps 2-7 which contain plural methods therein. Thus, these steps 2-7 should also be corrected as needed.
The step 1 phrase “setting particle property parameters, enthalpies, velocities, positions and stress-strain states” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “setting for the particle each of property parameters, enthalpies, velocities, positions and stress-strain states”, or “setting for the particle properties each of parameters, enthalpies, velocities, positions and stress-strain states”, or something different.
The step 2 phrase “time steps required by the advanced particle method” is unclear. What constitutes these required time steps is unknown and unclear.
In step 2 it is unclear what constitutes the “necessary conditions required for accuracy”. What constitutes these required necessary conditions is unknown and unclear. What constitutes “accuracy” is unknown and unclear.
The step 3 phrase “α is α a direction, being any value in x, y, z” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “α is a α direction, being any value in x, y, z”.
In step 3, the phrase “an equation (4).” is unclear. Claim 1 has two ending periods as the result of this phrase. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim is incomplete or whether it contains extraneous wording.
In step 4 (last paragraph) and step 5 (last paragraph) it is unclear what constitutes “truly reflect”. The term “truly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. The dividing boundary when “truly reflect” would be obtained is undefined and unclear.
In step 7 at line 1, it is unclear what constitutes the “required data”.
In step 7 (last paragraph) it is unclear what constitutes “mainly comprising”. The dividing boundary between “mainly” and non-mainly is undefined and unclear.
Claim 2
The phrase “accurately capturing cross-sectional changes” is unclear. The dividing boundary between “accurately capturing” and not accurately capturing is undefined and unclear.
Claim 3
It is unclear what constitutes a “large deformation”. The dividing boundary between “large” and non-large is undefined and unclear.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
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 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional features
that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the
claim is not patent eligible. Note the detailed analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court
has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]Jaws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided
by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18
(citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is
"directed to”. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn
to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against
risk").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include
certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices
(Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products' (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 192 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber,
smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854));
and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S.
780, 785 (1876)).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme
Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become
nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176;
see also id. at 192 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”).
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the
Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to
determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely
requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO's
January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
("Memorandum"). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional' in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Step 1- Statutory Category
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 1 is analyzed for eligibility in accordance with its broadest reasonable interpretation. The subject matter of claim 1 relies upon computational operations (e.g., obtaining data, evaluating data; generating data; and using data) which can be used to manipulate existing information/data to generate additional information/data. A method is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 1 : YES)
Step 2A, Prong One - Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2 A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we
evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One
represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine
whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity, or mental processes.
As best understood, claim 1 relies on arranging data associated with predicting outcomes in a (future) nuclear reactor accident. Claim 1 requires, in relevant part, a generic processor(s). Claim 1 requires, in relevant part: acquiring data; manipulating data to calculate additional data; and storing data.
Claim 1 relies upon computational operations to manipulate existing data to
generate additional data. Under the 2019 Guidance, mathematical formulas and computational operations fall within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Collecting
and analyzing information, without more, is abstract. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In this patent application, an example of “more” would be if claim 1 recited a step of using the data during a nuclear reactor core meltdown accident to determine real time flow of fuel element structure.
(Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Because claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Here, apart from the intended use features, the only additional feature (other than data manipulation) that is mentioned in claim 1 appears to be the conventional feature of “outputting . . . data” (step 7). Thus, this limitation merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See Memorandum at 55 n. 31. Accordingly, this feature does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 also does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a "computer system." See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that a CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device. Nor does claim 1 require a specific change in operation of a component (e.g., a step of moving or activating a nuclear reactor component) based on analysis of specific data. Absent evidence to the contrary, claim 1 merely relies on a computer system that includes generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
(Step 2A - Prong Two: NO).
Because the additional feature in claim 1 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the claim recites an "inventive concept."
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As noted, for Step 2B of the analysis we determine whether the claim adds a
specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine,
conventional' in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 does not include additional features that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional features do not
transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The pertinent issue is, namely, whether an additional feature recited in claim 1
(i.e., a claim feature in addition to the claim features that recite an abstract idea) is
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is
explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible
concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that
renders the invention "significantly more" than that ineligible concept. In
Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2355-56. Some of the claims
at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through
various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were
directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court
considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added
"significantly more" to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not
consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to
execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic
computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations
other than the invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it was
directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60.
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the only additional feature
that is mentioned in claim 1 is a conventional feature of “outputting . . . data”, which merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional feature, whether used individually or in an ordered combination, does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Nor does claim 1 require any specific change in operation of a device (e.g., a nuclear reactor) based on analysis of specific data. For example, claim 1 lacks an ability that requires determining and displaying real time reactor data during a nuclear core meltdown. Nevertheless, any change of operating parameters of a reactor would be mere post-solution activity. The use would be merely a result of conventional emergency safety features for a nuclear reactor and components thereof.
Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the additional feature does not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using data from computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception. Also, at best claim 1 merely relies on a conventional nuclear reactor that includes generic components. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
(Step 2B: NO).
Analysis Conclusion
The examiner has shown that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and lacks
an additional feature that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The computational operations (e.g., equations) are a mathematical relationship
which is similar to those found by the courts to be abstract. The claim relies upon computational operations to manipulate existing data to generate additional data. Claim 1 fails to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
The claim also does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a "computer system." There is no indication that a CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device. Absent evidence to the contrary, claim 1 merely relies on a computer system that includes generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Nor does the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Nor does claim 1 include additional features that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Again, claim 1 does not require any
specific change in operation of a nuclear reactor based on analysis of specific data. At best, application of data is merely pre-solution activity or post-solution activity.
Thus, claim 1 is rejected as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A similar analysis and conclusion apply to the dependent claims. The dependent claims merely recite further embellishment of the abstract idea, and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is unclear what constitutes a “sever accident”, “accurately capturing”, and a “large deformation”, for reasons discussed above. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is unclear what constitutes a “sever accident”. It is also unclear whether the “analyzing” occurs in real time.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “sever” is mentioned throughout the Specification.
Specification on page 1 indicates a priority date of “Sep. 01, 2022. Thus, it is unclear whether the priority date is 1 July 2022 or 1 September 2022.
Appropriate correction is required.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The Specification (e.g., page 17) admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. However, the mentioned Figure of a flow chart is absent. Correction is required.
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights