DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 27 April 2026 in regard to application no. 18/275,897. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of inventive group III, claims 3-16, in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: abbreviations in a claim, unless universally understood, should be explained on first use. The Examiner suggests replacing “multiple DeepONets” with “multiple deep operator networks (DeepONets)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regard to claim 6, the term “efficiency/autonomy” could be interpreted to mean “efficiency or autonomy” or “efficiency and autonomy”, and those interpretations would lead to a difference in scope if given weight. In regard to claims 12 and 13, the identical problem occurs in regard to “control/autonomy”. In regard to claims 14 and 15, the identical problem occurs in regard to “identification/discovery”. In regard to claims 9 and further in regard to claim 15, the applicant uses the abbreviation “VIV” as a claim term, but nowhere gives any hint as to what it is supposed to mean. The Examiner will assume that “vortex-induced vibration” is the intended elaboration, but this is simply an assumption of the Examiner; the specification and drawings provide no support for this.
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 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are each directed to a “network” comprising “multiple DeepONets”. DeeONet abbreviates “deep operator network. [Spec. ¶ 43] It is explained as a combination of neural networks, and there is nothing in the specification, or elsewhere in the originally filed application, that explicitly requires that a group of DeeONets include any physical components.
The broadest reasonable interpretation therefore includes embodiments implemented entirely as software per se. Software per se is a list of instructions, which is neither a process, machine, manufacture nor a composition of matter.
Claims 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a group of networks configured together for a particular purpose. The networks are labelled as “DeepONets”, but nowhere is that term actually defined by the applicant so as to be explicitly limited to any particular type of network. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this, therefore, includes the Internet. Beyond that, the only limitation of claim 3 is a statement of intended use, that it is used “to represent one of a plurality of Multiphysics problems”.
The human mind is capable of representing a multiphysics problem; in fact, physicists were writing papers about such problems long before there was any such thing as a computer. The claims therefore recite human mental work.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of networks, even if one confines the discussion to neural networks, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of, at most, generic computers implementing neural networks. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claim does not actually perform any process or recite any physical structure at all, it cannot improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). It does not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b). First, no machine is positively claimed at all; even if it were otherwise, there is nothing in the originally filed application that could require more than a generic computer, and the below-cited Guidance is explicit that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
It does not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c), as nothing is claimed to be transformed or reduced at all. Further, even if it were otherwise, the only possible objects upon which any computer interacts are simply data representing some kind of problem, and data are intangible and not a “particular article” at all, and simply manipulating data is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
It does not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. Assuming that a computer was to be incorporated into the claims, such an element is insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
The claim includes DeepONets which, at the most, require two neural networks. A neural network is a known machine learning technique or structure, and in light of Recentive1, the use of known machine learning techniques, where the only modification is adaptation to a new data environment, is not per se sufficient.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the invention less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – two networks which do nothing at all but are simply configured for a particular purpose – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because, as will be seen below, no dependent claim actually limits the independent claim; even if it were otherwise, at most they are statements of intended use or further descriptions of the data being manipulated, neither of which has any effect on this analysis.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosic et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0133378, filed 6 November 2020).
With regard to Claim 3:
A network comprising:
multiple DeepONets configured together [0060; two neural networks are combined; 0012; various types of neural networks may be used including a “deep neural network”] to represent one of a plurality of multiphysics problems. [0002; the system provides “Multiphysics simulation tools”]
The phrase “to represent one of a plurality of multiphysics problems” consists entirely of a statement of intended use which is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 4:
The network of claim 3 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.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 5:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises interrogating a system with different input scenarios to optimize design parameters of the system.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems. The phrase “to optimize design parameters of the system” is merely a statement of intended use which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 6:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises actuating a system to achieve efficiency/autonomy.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems. The phrase “to achieve efficiency/autonomy” is merely a statement of intended use which is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 7:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identifying system parameters and discovering unobserved dynamics.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 8:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises forecasting applications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 9:
The network of claim 8 wherein the forecasting applications include airfoils, solar thermal systems, VIV, material damage, path planning, material processing applications, additive manufacturing, structural health monitoring and infiltration.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 8. As was explained above, the “forecasting applications” limitation does not provide a patentable distinction over claim 3; as this claim merely gives examples of such applications, it also does not provide a patentable distinction.
With regard to Claim 10:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises design applications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 11:
The network of claim 10 wherein the design applications include airfoils, material damage and structural health monitoring.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 10. As was explained above, the “design applications” limitation does not provide a patentable distinction over claim 3; as this claim merely gives examples of such applications, it also does not provide a patentable distinction.
With regard to Claim 12:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises control/autonomy applications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 13:
The network of claim 12 wherein the control/autonomy applications include airfoils, electro-convection and path planning.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 12. As was explained above, the “control/autonomy applications” limitation does not provide a patentable distinction over claim 3; as this claim merely gives examples of such applications, it also does not provide a patentable distinction.
With regard to Claim 14:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises identification/discovery applications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
With regard to Claim 15:
The network of claim 14 wherein the identification/discovery applications include VIV, material damage and electro-convention.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 14. As was explained above, the “identification/discovery applications” limitation does not provide a patentable distinction over claim 3; as this claim merely gives examples of such applications, it also does not provide a patentable distinction.
With regard to Claim 16:
The network of claim 3 wherein the one of the plurality of multiphysics problems comprises resin transfer molding (RTM) applications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of a problem to be solved but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed network. Second, as the problem only “comprises” this item, it can include other problems, and any further processing could be done entirely with the other problems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
Prosecution Insights