DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action (“Action”) on the merits to the application filed April 10, 2023. Claims 1-6 are pending. All references to the specification of the instant application will be to U.S. Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0054266, which is the “PgPub” of the application.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of the foreign patent application papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on April 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Duty of Disclosure
As a reminder, there is a duty to disclose to the USPTO “information [that] is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application.” 37 CFR § 1.56(b). “The duty to disclose applies to matters pending before the USPTO and extends broadly to ‘[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application’ and ‘[e]ach individual associated with the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding.’” See MPEP § 2001.01 (quoting 37 CFR §§ 1.56(c), 1.555(a)). Section 2001.05 of the MPEP states: “[I]nformation is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.” 37 CFR § 1.56(b). This includes “any material prior art or other information cited or brought to their attention in any related foreign application.” MPEP § 2001.06(a).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive since it applies to all simulations. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the following change should be made to claim 2, “the evaluation of the excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution is performed based on a Reynolds number”. 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.
Limitations in claim 5 are considered to invoke section 112(f). As explained in section 2181, subsection I, of the MPEP, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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”.
The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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. See MPEP § 2111.01. 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) is invoked.
The limitations in claim 5 identified below do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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.
These limitations are:
Claim 5, “an input unit to which a simulation condition is input” has a generic placeholder “unit” and is followed by the function of receiving (“inputting”) “a simulation condition.” Additionally, the term “input” before “unit” does not impart any known structure, nor is the generic placeholder modified by any other structure. Lastly, “to which” is considered a linking phrase that links the recited generic placeholder with the claimed function.
Claim 5, “a processing unit that develops a position of each of a plurality of particles over time by using the particle method,” “the processing unit executes” several procedures. The term “unit” is a generic placeholder and is followed by the functions of “develop[ing] a position of” particles and “execut[ing]” several procedures. The term “processing” before “unit” does not impart any known structure, nor is the generic placeholder modified by any other structure. Lastly, “that” is considered a linking phrase that links the recited generic placeholder with the claimed function.
Because the claim limitations in claim 5 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows the following that appears to be corresponding structure for the limitations noted above:
Paragraph 55 of the specification as filed states: “The input unit 30 includes, for example, a communication device, a removable media reading device, a keyboard, a pointing device, or the like.”
Paragraph 56 of the specification as filed states: “Examples of the processing unit 31 include a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-4 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method and recites the following as part of the preamble:
adding a physical quantity to each of the plurality of calculation particles, disposing the plurality of calculation particles in an analysis space, and developing the physical quantity added to each of the plurality of calculation particles and positions of the plurality of calculation particles over time by solving a governing equation.
There appear to be at least three method steps in the preamble of “adding,” “disposing,” and “developing,” however, they are not part of the main body of the method claim. Furthermore, the method steps in the main body of claim 1 refer back to elements of these additional steps in the preamble. For these reasons, it is unclear if the “adding,” “disposing,” and “developing” steps in the preamble should be interpreted as part of the method or not.
For purposes of examination, and because the other independent claims 5 and 6 include main body limitations of virtually identical scope to the “adding,” “disposing,” and “developing” steps in the preamble of claim 1, these steps will be interpretated as part of the method and will carry patentable weight. Even so, claim 1 must be amended to more clearly delineate if the “adding,” “disposing,” and “developing” steps in the preamble are part of the method or not.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “the fluid to be analyzed” in the beginning of the claim. This lacks a clear antecedent basis because while there is previously recited “a fluid” in parent claim 1, there is not recited “a fluid to be analyzed,” “a fluid that is analyzed,” or equivalent. Thus, it is unclear if “the fluid to be analyzed” in claim 2 is the same the “fluid” recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, it is assumed to be the same.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites, “adding an artificial translocation term that acts in a direction of reducing distortion in distribution of the plurality of calculation particles, which is generated by dividing or combining the plurality of calculation particles, to the governing equation.” (Emphasis added.) It is unclear if the “which is” refers back to the “artificial translocation term” or “a direction of reducing distortion.” The claim should be amended for clarity.
Claim 3 also recites, with emphasis added, “solving the governing equation to which the artificial translocation term is added, during developing over time.” The phrase “during developing over time” is not grammatically correct and only appears in claim 3 of the application, thus, the specification does not help in understanding this phrase. Therefore, claim 3 is unclear and, in particular, it is not understood what the phrase “during developing over time” means.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites, with emphasis added, “a physical quantity is changed in a direction of correcting the distortion of the physical quantity for each of the plurality of calculation particles, which is generated by adding the artificial translocation term.”
First, the phrase “the distortion of the physical quantity for each of the plurality of calculation particles” lacks proper antecedent basis because there is not previously recited in claim 4 or parent claims 1-3 any “distortion of the physical quantity for each of the plurality of calculation particles.”
Second, similar to claim 3, it is unclear if the “which is” refers back to “a physical quantity” or “a direction of correcting distortion.” The claim should be amended for clarity.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine whether claimed subject matter is patent eligible section 2106 of the MPEP requires specific evaluation of the limitations recited. In step 1, a determination is made as to whether a claim is directed to a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter). If so, then a determination is made as to whether the claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, using a three part test: First, in step 2A, prong 1 the abstract idea is identified; Second, in step 2A, prong 2 the abstract idea is determined to be integrated into a practical application or not; and Third, in step 2B the additional claim limitations are evaluated individually and as a whole to determine if they amount to an inventive concept (i.e., determining whether the limitations are significantly more than the abstract idea itself).
While the claims fall within the statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter (i.e., step 1 is satisfied because the claims are directed to a process (claims 1-4), an apparatus (claim 5), and an apparatus or article of manufacture (claim 6)), they are nonetheless patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
Initially, the following explanation is based not only on the guidance in the MPEP, but also the “2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence,” published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) (AI-SME Update). Moreover, the Office has provided examples of patent ineligible subject matter that are relevant to the claimed subject matter of this application. In particular, examples 47 and 481, are relevant to the discussion below of claims 1-6 and should be reviewed for further guidance and support of the determination that claims 1-6 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent Claims 1, 5, and 6
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are virtually identical in scope except for the statutory categories and some of the more minor aspects of the claim limitations. They all recite similar limitations directed to an abstract idea, specifically the recitation of mathematical concepts and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III.
Taking claim 1 as a representative claim, the limitations comprising the abstract idea are:
[A] a procedure of representing the fluid as a plurality of calculation particles,
[A1] adding a physical quantity to each of the plurality of calculation particles,
[A2] disposing the plurality of calculation particles in an analysis space, and
[A3] developing the physical quantity added to each of the plurality of calculation particles and positions of the plurality of calculation particles over time by solving a governing equation,
[B] a procedure of evaluating an excess or deficiency of spatial resolution depending on sizes of the plurality of calculation particles, for each of the plurality of calculation particles, according to a state of a flow field represented by the plurality of calculation particles.
Limitation [A] is understood to be defined by sub-limitations [A1]-[A3], thus, limitation [A] is fully addressed by the sub-limitations. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, and consistent with the specification, limitation [A1] “is calculated by numerically solving the governing equations shown in Expressions (17) to (22) for each of the plurality of calculation particles 20,” (PgPub, ¶63); limitation [A2] is described as shown in “FIG. 3 [that] is a schematic diagram showing the analysis space 10 and the plurality of calculation particles 20 disposed in the analysis space 10 … the analysis space 10 has a rectangular shape” and “the physical quantity and position of each of the calculation particles 20 are updated (step SA3),” (PgPub, ¶¶62-63); limitation [A3] is described as “numerically solving the governing equations shown in Expressions (17) to (22) for each of the plurality of calculation particles 20,” (PgPub, ¶63); and limitation [B] is described as “calculating the Reynolds number Reγs at the position of the calculation particles 20s” and “[w]hen the Reynolds number Reγs is 10 or less, the processing unit 31 determines whether or not the Reynolds number Reγs is smaller than 2.5 (step SB8) … [w]hen the Reynolds number Reγs is smaller than 2.5, it is determined that the spatial resolution at the position of the calculation particles 20s is excessive (step SB10),” (PgPub, ¶76). Each of these steps [A1]-[A3] and [B] are mathematical in nature since they are described as being represented by mathematical equations, and as such, can be performed on paper or in the human mind. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), subsections I and III.
Since limitations [A1]-[A3] and [B] fall within the meaning of mental processes and mathematical concepts, they are taken together as a single abstract idea, to which the claims are directed. Thus, prong one of step 2A is satisfied and the analysis continues below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent Claims 1, 5, and 6
The descried invention states that “to perform highly accurate analysis in the entire analysis space, it is necessary to reduce the diameter of the particles in accordance with the thickness of the boundary layer even in a region far from the wall. Therefore, the number of particles to be disposed in the analysis space increases, and as a result, the amount of calculation increases.” PgPub, ¶23. As further described, “[i]It is desirable to provide a simulation method, a simulation apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program capable of maintaining high analysis accuracy and reducing a calculation amount in an analysis using a particle method.” Id., ¶24. This is done “[b]y adjusting the spatial resolution, according to a result of the evaluation of excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution, [and] the analysis can be performed with an appropriate spatial resolution in the entire analysis space.” Id., ¶25. Thus, while not expressly described, adjusting the spatial resolution accordingly, the accuracy of the analysis is maintained but the amount of calculation decreased compared with keeping all particle sizes small and thus the number of particles large. The specification does not describe or mention any application of the described method or analysis, except that it is with respect to “fluid” analysis, nor does the specification describe the algorithm as improving the functioning of a computer or improving a technology or technical field. See id., Abstract.
Since the specification makes no mention of a practical application, apart from reducing calculation time of the simulation, and claims 1, 5, and 6 do not recite any link to a practical application, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 5 also requires the abstract limitations to be carried out by “a processing unit” and as noted above in the section 112(f) discussion, this is interpreted as a “central processing unit (CPU) of a computer” or equivalent. However, the “processing unit” (even interpreted as a CPU) is claimed at a high level of generality and is merely a tool to apply the abstract idea, which does not result in a practical application of the abstract idea itself, especially since the claims also do not recite any link to a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 5, and 6 also require the step of, taking claim 1 as a representative example, “adjusting the spatial resolution, according to a result of the evaluation of the excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution.” However, this limitation is understood as nothing more than applying the abstract idea but does not link to any practical application of the invention. See MPEP § 2106.04(d), subsection I. For example, the limitation obtains a “result” from the execution of the abstract idea, but all that is done with this “result” is an “adjusting [of] the spatial resolution.” This is nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea without more to arrive at updated data, where the claims do not specify any use or action taken with that data to show integration into a practical application.
Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer based on the abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), subsection I, 2106.04(d)(1). While the described invention may result in a reduction in computing time, this is not necessarily an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself: the computer will still calculate the adjusted spatial resolution based on the given mathematical equations whether the current invention is used or not. Similarly, a reduction in computing time because of an improved algorithm is not necessarily an improvement in a technical field or technology, but is rather understood as an improvement in the abstract idea itself, which is not an improvement in a technical field resulting in patent eligible claims. See MPEP § 2106.05(a), subsection II (citing Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019), as explained in the MPEP “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). Just like in Trading Technologies, improvement in the abstract idea of calculating spatial resolution by an improved algorithm over a previously used algorithm, such as described in the specification, is nothing more than improving the algorithm or abstract idea itself.
Lastly, even taking the limitations together or in combination, there is nothing that would show an integrated practical application of the abstract idea. For example, there are no additional limitations that explain what is done with the adjusted spatial resolution to achieve any type of practical result. Since there are no other limitations to show integration into a practical application, prong 2 of step 2A is satisfied and the analysis continues below.
Step 2B: Independent Claims 1, 5, and 6
The abstract idea is embodied in the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 5, and 6 identified above. Claim 1 recites no additional limitations apart from the “adjusting” limitation discussed in the Step 2A, prong 2. Since this limitation has already been determined to not integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, as reasoned above, this limitation cannot result in significantly more that would make the claim patent eligible.
Claim 5 additionally recites “an input unit to which a simulation condition is input” and “a processing unit,” and claim 6 additionally recites a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process for simulation that analyzes a flow of a fluid using a particle method.” These additional limitations, however, do not amount to significantly more, and thus, do not make the abstract recited in claims 5 and 6 patent eligible.
The limitation in claim 5 of “an input unit to which a simulation condition is input” is nothing more than mere data collection, such as receiving an input, and is recited at a high level of generality, making the limitation insignificant extra-solution activity and not significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Additionally, the “processing unit” interpreted as a CPU (see section 112(f) discussion above) and the “non-transitory computer readable medium” limitations are recited at high levels of generality and are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Such limitations are recited in such a way that shows nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity or mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., abstract idea) using a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Moreover, even when considering all limitations together, the claims merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a generic computer, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Based on the analysis in steps 2A and 2B as explained above, claims 1, 5, and 6 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Dependent Claims 2-5
Claims 2-4 merely recite additional mathematical or mental process concepts, or recite limitations that are merely linking the abstract idea to an environment without anything more. As a result, these claims too are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “the fluid to be analyzed is in contact with a wall surface, the evaluation of the excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution is performed based on [a] Reynolds number of the flow field or a distance from the wall surface, at a position of each of the plurality of calculation particles, and the spatial resolution is adjusted by dividing or combining the plurality of calculation particles.” Limiting the fluid to “contact with a wall surface,” especially in a method claim, is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea to an environment but does not show a practical application of the abstract idea or add anything significant. Additionally, “the evaluation … based on [a] Reynolds number” and “dividing or combining” are nothing more than mathematical equations or concepts that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 3 recites “adding an artificial translocation term that acts in a direction of reducing distortion in distribution of the plurality of calculation particles, which is generated by dividing or combining the plurality of calculation particles, to the governing equation; and solving the governing equation to which the artificial translocation term is added, during developing over time.” The limitations “adding an artificial translocation term” and “solving the governing equation” are mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind. Moreover, the results of these mathematical concepts are not used in any practical way to show either integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 recites “the governing equation includes a Lagrange differential term, and a physical quantity is changed in a direction of correcting the distortion of the physical quantity for each of the plurality of calculation particles, which is generated by adding the artificial translocation term, by modifying the Lagrange differential term to include the artificial translocation term and solving the governing equation.” Further defining the “governing equation [to include] a Lagrange differential term” and changing “a physical quantity,” such as by “adding the artificial translocation term” and “modifying the Lagrange differential term” are also mathematical concepts that can be performed in the human mind. Moreover, the results of these mathematical concepts are not used in any practical way to show either integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As a result, none of dependent claims 2-4 recite significantly more than the abstract idea recited in independent claim 1, from which they all ultimately depend.
For the reasons explained above, none of claims 1-6 are directed to patent eligible subject matter under section 101, and are thus, rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka2.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites and Tanaka discloses:
A simulation apparatus that analyzes a flow of a fluid using a particle method (Tanaka, ¶¶3, 20-22, Fig. 1, flow simulation system 1 analyzes a flow of a fluid using a particle method), the simulation apparatus comprising:
an input unit to which a simulation condition is input (Tanaka, ¶20, Fig. 1, read only memory (ROM) 3 stores data and ‘the CPU 5 loads the flow simulation program and the data required for executing the flow simulation program stored in the ROM 3”); and
a processing unit that develops a position of each of a plurality of particles over time by using the particle method, based on the simulation condition input to the input unit (Tanaka, ¶¶7, 20-22, Fig. 1, the “CPU 5 controls whole processing of the flow simulation system 1,” which includes “execut[ing] the flow simulation using the MPS method through the flow simulation program” that includes “a particle data update logic-circuit configured to update the first velocity and the first position coordinate to a second velocity and a second position coordinate of each of the particles at a next time step of each of the time steps based on the velocity correction”), wherein
the processing unit executes
a procedure of representing the fluid as a plurality of calculation particles (Tanaka, ¶¶7, 24, Fig. 2, S1), adding a physical quantity to each of the plurality of calculation particles, disposing the plurality of calculation particles in an analysis space (Tanaka, ¶¶7, 24, Fig. 2, S1, “the particles are grouped according to different particle sizes depending on a spatial resolution required at positions in a simulation domain”), and developing the physical quantity added to each of the plurality of calculation particles and positions of the plurality of calculation particles over time by solving a governing equation (Tanaka, ¶¶7, 25-34, Fig. 2, SS3-S9, “a particle data update logic-circuit configured to update the first velocity and the first position coordinate to a second velocity and a second position coordinate of each of the particles at a next time step of each of the time steps based on the velocity correction”),
a procedure of evaluating an excess or deficiency of spatial resolution depending on sizes of the plurality of calculation particles, for each of the plurality of calculation particles, according to a state of a flow field represented by the plurality of calculation particles (Tanaka, ¶¶25, 35, 36, Fig. 2, S2, S10, S11, as the method progresses, the particles sizes are evaluated for “excess” or “deficiency” based on a comparison to “the ideal particle size L*”), and
a procedure of adjusting the spatial resolution, according to a result of the evaluation of the excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution (Tanaka, ¶¶25, 35, 36, Fig. 2, S2, S10, S11, after the particles sizes are evaluated for “excess” or “deficiency” based on a comparison to “the ideal particle size L*,” the spatial resolution or size of the particles in a particular region are updated).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites and Tanaka discloses a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a process for simulation that analyzes a flow of a fluid using a particle method.” Tanaka, ¶¶3, 20-22, Fig. 1, flow simulation system 1 analyzes a flow of a fluid using a particle method as programed and stored on ROM 3, loaded to RAM 2, and executed by CPU 5. The process of claim 6 is virtually identical to the functions carried out by the elements of the system of claim 5. As a result, claim 6 is anticipated under section 102(a)(1) over Tanaka for the reason above and the reasons presented in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites and Tanaka discloses a “simulation method of representing a fluid as a plurality of calculation particles” where the method steps (including those listed in the preamble) are of virtually identical scope as the functions carried out by the elements of the system of claim 5. As a result, claim 1 is anticipated under section 102(a)(1) over Tanaka for the reasons presented in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites and Tanaka discloses the “simulation method according to claim 1, wherein the fluid to be analyzed is in contact with a wall surface (Tanaka, ¶¶37-40, Figs. 6A-6C, 7A, 7B show the simulated particles of a fluid under analysis in a “container,” which necessarily has walled surfaces, specifically the far right “container” surface), the evaluation of the excess or deficiency of the spatial resolution is performed based on Reynolds number of the flow field or a distance from the wall surface, at a position of each of the plurality of calculation particles (Tanaka, ¶¶37-40, Figs. 6A-6C, 7A, 7B, the “container” is divided into groups and as the simulation progresses, the “excess” or “deficiency” of each particle is evaluated with respect to these groups, which correspond, as shown, to a distance from the far right “container” surface), and the spatial resolution is adjusted by dividing or combining the plurality of calculation particles (Tanaka, ¶25, the particles are “split” or “merged”).”
Conclusion
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1-6 are rejected as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1-4 are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Tanaka.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0195978 describes a “performance prediction method and system” that uses a simulation. Different particles types are used in the simulation, including converting particles less than a certain size into a different particle type.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0222400 describes a fluid simulation apparatus and method using particles of different sizes in different regions. This publication has the same inventive entity as the instant application and was published less than one year and filed prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, thus, the reference would be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2).
U.S. Patent No. 11,113,438 describes a “fluid simulating method” using data particles.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0401747 describes fluid simulation using particles, including enlarging the particles to reduce the number of particles in the simulation.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0131313 describes a “simulation method that predicts wet spreading and unions of a plurality of droplet.”
The citation of these references, which are not applied in the rejections above, should not be taken as an indication that the invention described in the instant application is distinguishable from them or that they could not be used in a subsequent rejection depending on the scope of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571) 270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0049489, to Masayuki Tanaka (“Tanaka”).
Prosecution Insights