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 .
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination based on the application filed on April 4, 2023.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Padding, J. T., and A. A. Louis. "Hydrodynamic interactions and Brownian forces in colloidal suspensions: Coarse-graining over time and length scales." Physical Review E-Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 74, no. 3 (2006): 031402.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1, 3, and 5, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
This action is made non-Final.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SIMULATION METHOD, SIMULATION DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM FOR RENORMALIZATION GROUP MOLECULAR DYNAMICS.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 0036, 0040, 0049, and 0070, which recites “Leonard-Jones potential”, should be “
Para. 0052, which cites “in a case where the particle 31 approach the wall surface 40”, should be “in a case where the particle 31 approaches the wall surface 40”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, which cites “the number of times of renormalization” on Pg. 2 Ln. 5, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the number of times of renormalization”. For the purpose of examination, “the number of times of renormalization” will be interpreted as “a number of times of renormalization”. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 2 Pg. 2 Ln. 14-15, “the renormalization of the attenuation force” should be “a renormalization of the attenuation force”.
Claim 3 Pg. 3 Ln. 5 and Pg. 2 Ln. 10, “the simulation condition input” should be “the simulation condition ”.
Claim 5 Pg. 5 Ln. 11 and Pg. 2 Ln. 15, “the acquired simulation condition input” should be “the ”.
Claims 4 and 6, having similar limitations of claim 2, are also objected under similar rationale.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Regarding claim 3, such claim limitation is the “A simulation device”, “an input unit”, “a processing unit”, and “an output unit”. Claim 4 will also be interpreted based on their claim dependencies.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
In Claim 3, “A simulation device that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface” and “a processing unit that analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed analyzing the fluid flow is a computer and a central processing unit, respectively, as shown in Para. 0054 (“The processing unit 51 performs the simulation using the molecular dynamics method or the renormalization group molecular dynamics method (hereinafter simply referred to as molecular dynamics method) based on the input simulation condition and command. Further, a simulation result is output to the output unit 52. The simulation result includes, for example, information representing a state of the particle 31 (Figs. 1A and 1B) reproducing the fluid, which is a simulation object, a spatial change and temporal change in a physical quantity of the fluid, and the like. The processing unit 51 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer. A program for causing the computer to execute the simulation by the molecular dynamics method is stored in the storage unit 53”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “A simulation device that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface” and “a processing unit that analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit” is a computer and central processing unit, respectively.
In Claim 3, “an input unit that receives a simulation condition”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed receiving a simulation condition is a computer keyboard as shown in Para. 0053 (“A simulation condition and the like are input from the input unit 50 to the processing unit 51. Further, various commands and the like are input from an operator to the input unit 50. The input unit 50 is configured of, for example, a communication device, a removable media reading device, or a keyboard”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “an input unit that receives a simulation condition” is a computer keyboard.
In Claim 3, “an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed outputting of the simulation result as shown in Para. 0054 (“Further, a simulation result is output to the output unit 52…The output unit 52 includes a communication device, a removable media writing device, a display, or the like”). Therefore, the interpretation of the “an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit” is a computer display.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 3-4 are directed to a device and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 5-6 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 3, and 5: The limitations of:
“a fluid flowing in contact with a wall surface is represented by a plurality of particles” of claim 1 preamble and its claim 3 and 5 recitations of “represents the fluid with a plurality of particles based on the simulation condition input to the input unit” and “representing the fluid with a plurality of particles based on the acquired simulation condition”, respectively, and
“particle-wall surface interaction between the plurality of particles and the wall surface and interparticle interaction between the plurality of particles are determined, an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles is solved for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, the simulation method comprising: causing, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, attenuation force received from the wall surface and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, in addition to force due to the interparticle interaction and the particle-wall surface interaction, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in a simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time” of claim 1 and its claim 3 and 5 recitations of “analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit, solves an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, and causes, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, force due to interparticle interaction and particle-wall surface interaction set in the simulation condition, attenuation force received from the wall surface, and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in the simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time” and “analyzing the flow of the fluid based on the acquired simulation condition, a procedure of solving an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, and in a case where the equation of motion is solved, force due to interparticle interaction and particle-wall surface interaction set in the simulation condition, attenuation force received from the wall surface, and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface are caused to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in the simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time”, respectively, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitation can be performed as the following:
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a fluid as a collection of particles a certain distance from a wall based on specific parameters such as fluid type, and
a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the position and velocity of the particles over time as they approach a wall within a certain distance to the wall and experience forces such as the attenuating damping force due to viscous resistance from the wall, a stochastic thermal noise force to maintain temperatures of the particles, and repelling forces from other particles and the wall using Newton motion equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, claims 1, 3, and 5: The limitation of “particle-wall surface interaction between the plurality of particles and the wall surface and interparticle interaction between the plurality of particles are determined, an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles is solved for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, the simulation method comprising: causing, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, attenuation force received from the wall surface and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, in addition to force due to the interparticle interaction and the particle-wall surface interaction, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in a simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time” of claim 1 and its claim 3 and 5 recitations of “analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit, solves an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, and causes, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, force due to interparticle interaction and particle-wall surface interaction set in the simulation condition, attenuation force received from the wall surface, and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in the simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time” and “analyzing the flow of the fluid based on the acquired simulation condition, a procedure of solving an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time, and in a case where the equation of motion is solved, force due to interparticle interaction and particle-wall surface interaction set in the simulation condition, attenuation force received from the wall surface, and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface are caused to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in the simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time”, as drafted, is an operation that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the position and velocity of the particles over time can be conducted using momentum equations and particle experience forces on a specified fluid such as the attenuating damping force due to viscous resistance from the wall, a stochastic thermal noise force to maintain temperatures of the particles, and repelling forces from other particles and the wall as they approach a wall within a certain distance to the wall (Para. 0043, equation 3 gives the equation of motion of the particle near a wall).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic operation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 3, and 5 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 3, and 5: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A simulation device that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface, the simulation device comprising: an input unit, a processing unit, and an output unit” and “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a procedure of analyzing a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element, “an input unit that receives a simulation condition”, “an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit”, and “a procedure of acquiring a simulation condition” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data outputting activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 3, and 5 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 3, and 5: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 3, and 5 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 6, they recite additional limitations of “wherein the fluid flows in one direction, the plurality of particles are renormalized, in a case where an xyz orthogonal coordinate system is defined in which a flow direction of the fluid is set as an x direction, in at least one of the x direction, a y direction, or a z direction” and “in a case where the number of times of renormalization in the x direction, the y direction, and the z direction is marked as nx, ny, and nz, respectively, renormalization factors λx, λy, and λz that represent a degree of renormalization are marked as
λ
x
=
2
n
x
λ
y
=
2
n
y
λ
z
=
2
n
z
, and an attenuation coefficient before the renormalization of the attenuation force is marked as γ and an attenuation coefficient after the renormalization is marked as γR, the attenuation coefficient γR after the renormalization is calculated by applying a transformation rule
γ
R
=
λ
y
4
3
λ
z
4
3
λ
x
2
3
and the attenuation coefficient γR after the renormalization is used in a case where the equation of motion is solved”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally or draw with pen and paper renormalize the particles in each direction by perform a scaling in each of the direction as the particles flow in the x direction, and a person can mentally determine or draw with pen and paper the position and velocity of the renormalized particles over time as they approach a wall in the x-direction within a certain distance to the wall and experience forces such as the attenuating damping force due to viscous resistance from the wall by scaling the attenuating damping force coefficient by a transformation with respective the number of renormalizations in each direction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 2, 4, and 6, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the fluid flows in one direction, the plurality of particles are renormalized, in a case where an xyz orthogonal coordinate system is defined in which a flow direction of the fluid is set as an x direction, in at least one of the x direction, a y direction, or a z direction” and “in a case where the number of times of renormalization in the x direction, the y direction, and the z direction is marked as nx, ny, and nz, respectively, renormalization factors λx, λy, and λz that represent a degree of renormalization are marked as
λ
x
=
2
n
x
λ
y
=
2
n
y
λ
z
=
2
n
z
, and an attenuation coefficient before the renormalization of the attenuation force is marked as γ and an attenuation coefficient after the renormalization is marked as γR, the attenuation coefficient γR after the renormalization is calculated by applying a transformation rule
γ
R
=
λ
y
4
3
λ
z
4
3
λ
x
2
3
and the attenuation coefficient γR after the renormalization is used in a case where the equation of motion is solved” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical evaluations. For example, calculating the position and velocity of the particles over time can be conducted using momentum equations and particle experience forces such as the attenuating damping force due to viscous resistance from the wall and scaling the attenuating damping force coefficient by a transformation with respective the number of renormalizations in each direction (Para. 0043, equation 3 gives the equation of motion of the particle near a wall and Para. 0110, equation 34 gives the transform of the attenuation coefficient for an anisotropic renormalization).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematic evaluations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operation” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 6, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein the simulation condition includes a renormalization condition in which the plurality of particles are renormalized” and “wherein the simulation condition includes a renormalization condition in which the plurality of particles are renormalized” is merely an insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering, record update, and data transmission activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional element amounts to significantly more, these claim also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus these claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2, 4, and 6 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-6 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2, 4, and 6 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 3, and 5, respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Padding, J. T., and A. A. Louis. "Hydrodynamic interactions and Brownian forces in colloidal suspensions: Coarse-graining over time and length scales." Physical Review E-Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 74, no. 3 (2006): 031402 [herein “Padding”].
As per claim 1, Padding teaches “A simulation method in which a fluid flowing in contact with a wall surface is represented by a plurality of particles, particle-wall surface interaction between the plurality of particles and the wall surface and interparticle interaction between the plurality of particles are determined, and an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles is solved for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time”. (Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In SRD, the solvent is represented by a large number Nf of particles of mass mf. Here and in the following, we will call these “fluid” particles” [a fluid is represented by a plurality of particles]. Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In the first propagation step of the algorithm, the positions and velocities of the fluid particles are propagated” [e.g., a simulation method in which a fluid flowing is represented by a plurality of particles] “for a time timestep Δtc (the time between collision steps) by accurately integrating Newton’s equations of motion” [see Equ. 1 and 2, e.g., an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles is solved for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time] “where ri and vi are the position and velocity of fluid particle i, respectively, while fi is the total (external) force on particle i, which come from an external field such as gravity, fixed boundary conditions such as hard walls,” [e.g., a simulation method in which a fluid flowing in contact with a wall surface is represented by a plurality of particles and particle-wall surface interaction between the plurality of particles and the wall surface is determined] “or moving boundary conditions such as suspended colloids” [interparticle interaction between the plurality of particles is determined]. Further see Sect. II-III. The examiner has interpreted that performing a propagation algorithm of a solvent fluid represented by a large number of particles to propagate the position and velocity of the fluid for time steps using newtons equations of motions for the particles experiencing force from hard walls and suspended colloids as a simulation method in which a fluid flowing in contact with a wall surface is represented by a plurality of particles, particle-wall surface interaction between the plurality of particles and the wall surface and interparticle interaction between the plurality of particles are determined, and an equation of motion governing motion of the plurality of particles is solved for each of the plurality of particles to develop positions and velocities of the plurality of particles over time.)
Padding teaches “the simulation method comprising: causing, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, attenuation force received from the wall surface and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, in addition to force due to the interparticle interaction and the particle-wall surface interaction, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in a simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time.” (Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In the first propagation step of the algorithm, the positions and velocities of the fluid particles are propagated for a time timestep Δtc (the time between collision steps) by accurately integrating Newton’s equations of motion” and Pg. 7 Sect. III, “The positions and velocities of the colloidal spheres are propagated through the velocity Verlet algorithm [62] with a timestep ΔtMD: [see Equ. 1-2 and 18-19, e.g., the simulation method comprising: causing, in a case where the equation of motion is solved to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time] “Ri and Vi are the position and velocity of colloid i, respectively. Fi is the total force on that colloid, exerted by the fluid particles, an external field, such as gravity, and external potentials such as repulsive walls, as well as other colloids within the range of the interaction potential” [in addition to force due to the interparticle interaction and the particle-wall surface interaction, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles]. Pg. 13 Sect. V, “The friction coefficient ξ can be extracted from the Stokes drag Fd on a fixed colloid in fluid flow…The prefactor of 4 comes from using slip boundary conditions; it would be 6 for stick boundary conditions” [e.g., attenuation force received from the wall surface]. Pg. 14 Sect. V, “However, for the case of the colloids embedded through direct solvent collisions, turning off the hydrodynamic forces by randomizing the velocities greatly enhances the friction because, as is clear from Eqs. 40–42, the two contributions add in parallel. Without long-range hydrodynamics, the friction would be entirely dominated by the Enskog contribution 40 which scales with σ2cf and can be much larger than the hydrodynamic contribution which scales as σcf. An other way of stating this would be that by locally conserving momentum, SRD allows the development of long-range hydrodynamic fluid velocity correlations that greatly reduce the friction felt by a larger colloidal particle compared to the friction it would feel from a purely random Brownian heat bath at the same temperature and number density” [e.g., random force according to a temperature of the wall surface]. Pg. 8 Sect. III “we routinely choose the colloid fluid interaction range σcf slightly below half the colloid σcc/2. More precisely, we ensure that the colloid-colloid interaction equals 2.5kBT at a distance d where the depletion interactions have become zero—i.e., at a distance of twice the colloid-solvent interaction cutoff radius” [whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in a simulation condition]. Further see Sect. III-V. The examiner has interpreted that propagating the fluid particles and colloids by integrating Newton’s equations of motion and velocity algorithms with timesteps using the force experienced by interaction potentials between colloids exerted by fluid particles and from repulsive walls, friction extracted by stokes drag for stick boundaries, and random velocities from a Brownian heat bath for fluid interaction range less than half the side of the colloid fluid particles as the simulation method comprising: causing, in a case where the equation of motion is solved, attenuation force received from the wall surface and random force according to a temperature of the wall surface, in addition to force due to the interparticle interaction and the particle-wall surface interaction, to act on a particle, among the plurality of particles, whose distance to the wall surface is equal to or less than a first distance set in a simulation condition to develop a position and a velocity of a particle over time.)
Re Claim 3, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 3 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, Padding teaches “A simulation device that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface, the simulation device comprising: an input unit that receives a simulation condition; a processing unit that analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit; and an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit”. (Pg. 1 Sect. I, “The fundamental difficulty of fully including the detailed solvent dynamics in computer simulations becomes apparent when considering the enormous time- and length-scale differences between mesoscopic colloidal and microscopic sol vent particles” [e.g., a simulation device]. Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In SRD, the solvent is represented by a large number Nf of particles of mass mf. Here and in the following, we will call these “fluid” particles” [a fluid is represented by a plurality of particles]. Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In the first propagation step of the algorithm, the positions and velocities of the fluid particles are propagated for a time timestep Δtc (the time between collision steps) by accurately integrating Newton’s equations of motion” [e.g., a simulation device and processing unit that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing] “where ri and vi are the position and velocity of fluid particle i, respectively, while fi is the total (external) force on particle i, which come from an external field such as gravity, fixed boundary conditions such as hard walls,” [e.g., analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface]. Pg. 4 Sect. II, “In this paper we will use the following units: lengths will be in units of cell size a0, energies in units of kBT, and masses in units of mf (this corresponds to setting a0=1, kBT =1, and mf =1). Time, for example, is expressed in units t0 =
a
0
m
f
/
k
B
T
and the number density nf = γ/ a03, and other derived units can be found in Table I” [input parameters, e.g., an input unit that receives a simulation condition and based on the simulation condition input to the input unit]. Pg. 21 Sect. VIII, “Correctly rendering the principal Brownian and hydrodynamic properties of colloids in solution is a challenging task for computer simulation. In this article we have explored how treating the solvent with SRD, which coarse-grains the collisions between solvent particles over both time and space, leads to an efficient solution of the thermohydrodynamic equations of the solvent, in the external field provided by the colloids… we have shown how to correctly render the principal Brownian and hydrodynamic behavior of colloids in solution” [e.g., and an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit]. Further see Sect. I-II, and VIII. The examiner has interpreted that rendering fluid hydrodynamic behavior of a solution in computer simulations through propagating the fluid particles and colloids by integrating Newton’s equations of motion and velocity algorithms with timesteps using the force exerted from repulsive walls and derived units of cell size, mass, time, and density as a simulation device that analyzes a flow of a fluid flowing along a wall surface, the simulation device comprising: an input unit that receives a simulation condition; a processing unit that analyzes the flow of the fluid based on the simulation condition input to the input unit; and an output unit that outputs an analysis result obtained by the processing unit.)
Re Claim 5, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 5 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1, 3, and 5, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The limitations of claims 2, 4, and 6 include a transformation that provides a unique and specific relationship between the attenuation coefficient prior to renormalization and the attenuation coefficient after the renormalization with respect to the different renormalization magnitudes of the xyz dimensions of the particles (anisotropic renormalization). Padding or the closest prior art references of record, as listed below, alone or in combination, do not disclose the limitations including a transformation that provides a unique and specific relationship between the attenuation coefficient prior to renormalization and the attenuation coefficient after the renormalization with respect to the different magnitudes of renormalization for the dimensions of the particles in combination with all of the remaining limitations:
Ichishima, Daiji, and Yuya Matsumura. "Renormalization group theory of molecular dynamics." Scientific Reports 11, no. 1 (2021): 5968,
Samieegohar, Mohammadreza, Heng Ma, Feng Sha, Md Symon Jahan Sajib, G. Iván Guerrero-García, and Tao Wei. "Understanding the interfacial behavior of lysozyme on Au (111) surfaces with multiscale simulations." Applied Physics Letters 110, no. 7 (2017), and
Robertson, Bryan, Jeremy Schofield, Pierre Gaspard, and Raymond Kapral. "Molecular theory of Langevin dynamics for active self-diffusiophoretic colloids." The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, no. 12 (2020).
Therefore, claims 2, 4, and 6 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radhakrishnan, Ravi, Hsiu-Yu Yu, David M. Eckmann, and Portonovo S. Ayyaswamy. "Computational models for nanoscale fluid dynamics and transport inspired by nonequilibrium thermodynamics." Journal of Heat Transfer 139, no. 3 (2017): 033001 teaches performing computation fluid dynamics using coarse graining on fluid particles subjected to different forces.
Bolintineanu, Dan S., Gary S. Grest, Jeremy B. Lechman, Flint Pierce, Steven J. Plimpton, and P. Randall Schunk. "Particle dynamics modeling methods for colloid suspensions." Computational Particle Mechanics 1, no. 3 (2014): 321-356 teaches a coarse-grained constitutive model for particle dynamics in colloid suspension using a length scale isotopically.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights