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 .
Responsive to the communication dated 8/7/2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 8/7/2023 claims domestic benefit of 16549338 dated 8/23/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 8/7/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because many of the drawings have improper landscape orientation. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
37 CFR 1.84(i)
(i) Arrangement of views. One view must not be placed upon another or within the outline of another. All views on the same sheet should stand in the same direction and, if possible, stand so that they can be read with the sheet held in an upright position. If views wider than the width of the sheet are necessary for the clearest illustration of the invention, the sheet may be turned on its side so that the top of the sheet, with the appropriate top margin to be used as the heading space, is on the right-hand side. Words must appear in a horizontal, left-to-right fashion when the page is either upright or turned so that the top becomes the right side, except for graphs utilizing standard scientific convention to denote the axis of abscissas (of X) and the axis of ordinates (of Y).
Figures 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 are oriented such that the top of the sheet, with the appropriate top margin to be used as the heading space, is on the left-hand side.
Specification
The abstract dated 8/7/2023 has 145 words, 10 lines, and no legal phraseology. The abstract is accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 - 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11755937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
CLAIM 1.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 1
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 1
NOTES
1
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
2
receiving a first dataset for a new material design,
receiving, by a processor, a first dataset for a new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
3
the new material design including crack growth rate data;
These elements are recited in line 5 of the patent
4
receiving second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with an existing material design;
receiving, by the processor, second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with at least one of an existing material design,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
5
the first, second, or third dataset including crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor;
These elements make obvious the element of line 3 of the instant claim
6
determining a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third datasets for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity;
determining, by the processor, a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third dataset for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
7
the legacy model built as a function of at least one of the loading frequency, the stress ratio, or the amplitude stress intensity factor;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
8
calculating a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
calculating, by the processor, a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
9
determining
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design
based on the model weight;
determining, by the processor
and based on a combination of the determined legacy models for the plurality of different legacy systems and the weight associated therewith,
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design;
The elements are merely recited in slightly different order
10
saving, by the processor, a record of the determined first multi-source model;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
11
and determining a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design
determining, by the processor, a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
12
generating, by the processor, a second multi-source model based on the predictive analysis, a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model; and estimating, by the processor, the crack propagation rate based on the second multi-source model
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
CLAIM 2.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 2
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 1
NOTES
1
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
2
receiving, by a processor, a first dataset for a new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
3
4
receiving, by the processor, second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with at least one of an existing material design,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
5
wherein the first, second, or third dataset includes the crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor.
the first, second, or third dataset including crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor;
6
determining, by the processor, a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third dataset for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
7
the legacy model built as a function of at least one of the loading frequency, the stress ratio, or the amplitude stress intensity factor;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
8
calculating, by the processor, a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
9
determining, by the processor
and based on a combination of the determined legacy models for the plurality of different legacy systems and the weight associated therewith,
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design;
The elements are merely recited in slightly different order
10
saving, by the processor, a record of the determined first multi-source model;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
11
determining, by the processor, a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
12
generating, by the processor, a second multi-source model based on the predictive analysis, a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model; and estimating, by the processor, the crack propagation rate based on the second multi-source model
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
CLAIM 3.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 3
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 1
NOTES
1
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
2
receiving, by a processor, a first dataset for a new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
3
4
receiving, by the processor, second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with at least one of an existing material design,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
5
the first, second, or third dataset including crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor;
6
determining, by the processor, a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third dataset for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity,
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
7
wherein the legacy model is built as a function of at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor.
the legacy model built as a function of at least one of the loading frequency, the stress ratio, or the amplitude stress intensity factor;
8
calculating, by the processor, a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
9
determining, by the processor
and based on a combination of the determined legacy models for the plurality of different legacy systems and the weight associated therewith,
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design;
The elements are merely recited in slightly different order
10
saving, by the processor, a record of the determined first multi-source model;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
11
determining, by the processor, a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design;
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
12
generating, by the processor, a second multi-source model based on the predictive analysis, a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model; and estimating, by the processor, the crack propagation rate based on the second multi-source model
The instant claim is broader/obvious to omit unwanted items
CLAIM 4.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 4
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 1
NOTES
1
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
2
receiving, by a processor, a first dataset for a new material design;
3
4
receiving, by the processor, second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with at least one of an existing material design,
5
the first, second, or third dataset including crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor;
6
determining, by the processor, a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third dataset for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity,
7
the legacy model built as a function of at least one of the loading frequency, the stress ratio, or the amplitude stress intensity factor;
8
calculating, by the processor, a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
9
determining, by the processor
and based on a combination of the determined legacy models for the plurality of different legacy systems and the weight associated therewith,
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design;
10
saving, by the processor, a record of the determined first multi-source model;
11
determining, by the processor, a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design;
12
further estimating the crack propagation rate based on a second multi-source model.
generating, by the processor, a second multi-source model based on the predictive analysis, a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model; and estimating, by the processor, the crack propagation rate based on the second multi-source model
CLAIM 5.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 5
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 1
NOTES
1
A method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising:
2
receiving, by a processor, a first dataset for a new material design;
3
4
receiving, by the processor, second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with at least one of an existing material design,
5
the first, second, or third dataset including crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor;
6
determining, by the processor, a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third dataset for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity,
7
the legacy model built as a function of at least one of the loading frequency, the stress ratio, or the amplitude stress intensity factor;
8
calculating, by the processor, a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models;
9
determining, by the processor
and based on a combination of the determined legacy models for the plurality of different legacy systems and the weight associated therewith,
a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design;
10
saving, by the processor, a record of the determined first multi-source model;
11
determining, by the processor, a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design;
12
wherein a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model is higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model
generating, by the processor, a second multi-source model based on the predictive analysis, a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model; and estimating, by the processor, the crack propagation rate based on the second multi-source model
CLAIM 6.
Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 6
Pat No. 11755937 Claim 2
NOTES
1
wherein each legacy model is determined based on at least one of (1) a model for legacy data for each respective legacy model or (2) a discrepancy model indicative of a discrepancy from the legacy system to the new material design.
Wherein each legacy model is determined based on a model for legacy data for each respective legacy model and a discrepancy model indicative of a discrepancy from the legacy system to the new design.
Claim 8. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 8 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 11.
Claim 9. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 9 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 11.
Claim 10. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 10 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 11.
Claim 11. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 11 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 11.
Claim 12. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 12 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 11.
Claim 13. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 13 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 12.
NOTE: the limitations of claims 8 – 13 are substantially the same as those of claims 1 – 6 above and the rejection is accordingly due to the same reasons as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “a method…”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES.
The claim recites “a method for estimating a crack propagation rate, comprising: receiving a first dataset for a new material design, the new material design including crack growth rate data; receiving second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with an existing material design; determining a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third datasets for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity; calculating a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models; determining a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design based on the model weight; and determining a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design” which is a MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT IDEA.
A review of the specification shows that the models are mathematical equations.
For example, paragraph 21, 24, and 25 states:
PNG
media_image1.png
368
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
495
1225
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
763
1018
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as outlined in paragraph 21, the Applicant has adapted a Bayesian multi-source modeling approach so models are built for each data set separately. This is shown in equation 2. Accordingly, the disclosed improvement is a mathematical one.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites “… estimating a crack propagation rate” this merely links the estimating to a filed of use. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
While the claim recites “receiving a first dataset for a new material design, the new material design including crack growth rate data; receiving second and third datasets for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with an existing material design;” receiving data is extra-solution data gathering activity and MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, while the datasets are described as “for a new material design, the new material design including crack growth rate data” and “for a plurality of different legacy systems associated with an existing material design” these elements are merely descriptive of the data and merely contextualize of link the data to a filed of use. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
While the claim recites “determining a legacy model for each of the plurality of different legacy systems based on the respective second and third datasets for each of the plurality of different legacy systems and the first dataset for the new material design, the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity; calculating a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models; determining a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design based on the model weight; and determining a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design” these elements are the mathematical abstract idea discussed above as per paragraphs 21, 24, and 25 of the instant specification. While this limitation recites elements such as “legacy systems” and “material design” these elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a filed of use called legacy systems and “material design.” Linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
STEP 2B: NO
The claim is directed towards a mathematical abstract idea and further recites to receive data utilized in the mathematical calculation. The data gathering is recites generically as “receiving.” Accordingly, when the claim is considered as a whole with the receiving steps the claim is not found to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8. The limitations of claim 8 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim1. While the claim recites the additional elements of: “An apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:” these element merely recite a computer (i.g., a programmable circuit apparatus with instruction and an interface) at a high degree of generality. MPEP 2106.05(f) indicates that merely reciting or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 15. The limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim1. While the claim recites the additional elements of: “A non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least:” these element merely recite a computer (i.g., a programmable circuit) at a high degree of generality. MPEP 2106.05(f) indicates that merely reciting or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2, 9, 16.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO.
While the claim recites: “wherein the first, second, or third dataset includes the crack growth rate data for at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor” this is merely descriptive of the data obtained during the data gathering process. The data includes “frequency”, “stress ratio”, “amplitude stress intensity factor” which are numeric values. These numeric values are gathered for the purpose of using these number is the recited “calculating.”
MPEP 2106.05(g) indicates that insignificant extra solution activity includes “necessary data gathering and outputting” and states that “gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering” and also that “obtain[ing] input for an equation” has been found by the Courts to be mere data gathering.
Because these elements are found to be mere data gathering these are not additional elements or a combination of additional elements that rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, these elements do not provide a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO.
These elements do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These elements are merely descriptive of the first, second, and third datasets. At most the descriptive nature of these claim elements merely characterizes data or contextualizes the data linking it to a field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) indicates that linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a claim that, as a whole, is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, 17. While the claim recites: “wherein the legacy model is built as a function of at least one of a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor” these elements further recite the mathematical concept. These elements explicitly recite to build a mathematical “function” (e.g., y = f(a, b, c) ) using name parameters. While these elements name the parameters as “a loading frequency, a stress ratio, or an amplitude stress intensity factor”, as stated, previously, characterizing or naming numerical values, at best, links that values to a filed of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) indicates that linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a claim that (1) integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or (2), as a whole, is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 11, 18. While the claim recites: “further estimating the crack propagation rate based on a second multi-source model” this merely further recites the mathematical abstract idea because estimating a rate is a mathematical calculation. Further, while the claim recites that the rate is a “crack propagation rate” this merely names the mathematical number (i.e., rate). Naming or characterizing calculated numeric values, at best, contextualizes or links the number to a filed of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) indicates that linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of a claim that (1) integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or (2), as a whole, is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, 19. While the claim recites: “wherein a model prediction accuracy of the second multi-source model is higher than the model prediction accuracy of the first multi-source model” this is merely descriptive of the mathematical calculation imputing an “accuracy” to the mathematical models predictive ability. While this claim may assert that the mathematical model is accurate, improvements to an abstract idea itself is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more because the abstract idea itself is not additional elements (other than the abstract idea) which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a way that improves these additional (other than the abstract idea) elements. In other words, an accurate mathematical calculation is not patent eligible no matter how accurate the calculation is because it is that abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13, 20. While the claim recites: “wherein each legacy model is determined based on at least one of (1) a model for legacy data for each respective legacy model or (2) a discrepancy model indicative of a discrepancy from the legacy system to the new material design” this is merely describing how the mathematical model is determined. Determining a mathematical model is part of the mathematical abstract idea itself. Therefore, these elements, being part of the abstract idea, are not additional elements with rely upon or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Accordingly these element doe not recite a practical application. Further, as these elements are part of the abstract idea itself, they do not provide additional elements, that make the claim, as a whole, significantly more than the abstract idea. This is because they are part of the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7, 14 while the claim recites: “wherein the first multi-source model is valid to accurately predict an outcome for all new data for the new material design, within a relevant range of input variables” this is merely descriptive of the mathematical calculation imputing an “validity to accurately predict” to the mathematical models’ predictive ability. While this claim may assert that the mathematical model is valid and accurate to predict over the models’ relevant range, this is merely describing an attribute of the abstract idea itself. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more because the abstract idea itself is not additional elements (other than the abstract idea) which rely upon or use the abstract idea in a way that improves these additional (other than the abstract idea) elements. In other words, an valid and accurate mathematical calculation over a relevant range of input variables (i.e., range of number input into the mathematical calculation) is not patent eligible no matter how valid or accurate the calculation is because it is that abstract idea itself.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The claim recites: “… the legacy model based on a validity of each legacy system, the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity…” what was also recited in the parent case as the allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art found by the Examiner was Yu_2021 which teaches a model fusion method as outlined below:
PNG
media_image4.png
667
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, this method does not teaches “the validity determined using a legacy model likelihood validity and a predictive uncertainty model validity”. Further, Yu_2021 was published in 2021 and the priority date of the instant application is 2018.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights