DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2016 and 6/8/2023 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 6/8/2023, wherein:
Claims 1-19 and 21 have been amended;
Claims 20 and 22 have been canceled; and
Claims 1-19, and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system and method for numerical modular simulation which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under: Mathematical Concepts such as mathematical calculation; and Mental Process including collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-19 and 21 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1 and 21, the claims recite an abstract idea of: numerical modular simulation. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A computer-implemented method for numerical modular simulation of a system, the method comprising:(a) disaggregating said system into at least two subunit simulation subsystems, (b) simulating the respective subunit simulation subsystems stepwise repeatedly generating subsystem-step-output from subsystem-step-input during a respective subsystem-time-step, further comprising: (c) transmitting the subsystem-step-inputs to a receiving subsystem and simulating the at least two subunit simulation subsystems over a delay-time before the subsystem-step-outputs are generated, (d) receiving connection interface variables from a sending subsystem comprising at least one of: numerical data, at least parameters of a data-prediction-model of said numerical data, or said data-prediction-model assigned to said numerical data, wherein said numerical data belongs to said subsystem-step-output of said sending subsystem, and comprises details about at least one information of the sending subsystem to be sent to at least one receiving subsystem, (e) predicting said numerical data by the data-prediction-model over said delay-time to obtain predicted numerical data of said interface variables provided by said sending subsystem, (f) starting the next simulation step of said receiving subsystem generating the next subsystem-step-output from the subsystem-step-input, wherein said subsystem-step-input comprises said predicted numerical data. Independent claim 21 recites similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 21, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mathematical Concepts, since they recite mathematical calculations. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Independent claims 1 and 21, as drafted, are a process that, also under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mental Processes, since they recite limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, such as, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “computer implemented, a system, subunit simulation subsystems, a receiving subsystem, a sending subsystem, and a computer system comprising at least one processor”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-19 recite similar limitations as claims 1 and 21; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “sending subsystems, at least one subsystem, said system, said simulation subsystems, one other simulation subsystem, and iterative subsystems”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1 and 21 only recite the additional elements of “computer implemented, a system, subunit simulation subsystems, a receiving subsystem, a sending subsystem, and a computer system comprising at least one processor”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-19, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “sending subsystems, at least one subsystem, said system, said simulation subsystems, one other simulation subsystem, and iterative subsystems”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1 and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming 35 USC §102/§103
Claims 1-19, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for subject matter of independent clams 1 and 21 overcoming the prior art rejections under 35 USC §102/§103.
The closest prior art of record is US 2016/0055278 to Zehetner et al. (hereinafter referred to as Zehetner), US 2016/0147920 to Goulkhah (hereinafter referred to as Goulkhah), and US 20190377844 to Benedikt (hereinafter referred to as Benedikt). Allowable subject matter is indicated because none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach or fairly suggest or render obvious the combination set forth in independent claims 1 and 21. For independent claim 1, the prior art of Zehetner, Goulkhah, and Benedikt specifically do not disclose: “a computer-implemented method for numerical modular simulation of a system, the method comprising:(a) disaggregating said system into at least two subunit simulation subsystems, (b) simulating the respective subunit simulation subsystems stepwise repeatedly generating subsystem-step-output from subsystem-step-input during a respective subsystem-time-step, further comprising: (c) transmitting the subsystem-step-inputs to a receiving subsystem and simulating the at least two subunit simulation subsystems over a delay-time before the subsystem-step-outputs are generated, (d) receiving connection interface variables from a sending subsystem comprising at least one of: numerical data, at least parameters of a data-prediction-model of said numerical data, or said data-prediction-model assigned to said numerical data, wherein said numerical data belongs to said subsystem-step-output of said sending subsystem, and comprises details about at least one information of the sending subsystem to be sent to at least one receiving subsystem, (e) predicting said numerical data by the data-prediction-model over said delay-time to obtain predicted numerical data of said interface variables provided by said sending subsystem, (f) starting the next simulation step of said receiving subsystem generating the next subsystem-step-output from the subsystem-step-input, wherein said subsystem-step-input comprises said predicted numerical data”. Similar reasoning and rationale applies to independent claims 21. Dependent claims 1-19 are allowable over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/PAUL S SCHWARZENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695 6/16/26
Prosecution Insights