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 8/11/2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Final Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The drawing have been amended. The drawings have the proper orientation. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The Applicant asserts that the double patenting rejection is moot in view of amended independent claims 1, 8, 15.
In response the argument is not persuasive.
The amended claims delete the “calculating a model weight to associate with each of the determined legacy models” and “the predictive analysis including an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design”, however, simply deleting elements does not make the claim non-obvious over the prior patent because merely deleting elements simply broadens the instant claims. Removing unwanted elements would be obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Further the narrower parent still reads on the instant claims.
The Applicant also added the elements of “generating, based on the predictive analysis a second multi-source to estimate, with a higher accuracy than the first multi-source model, a crack propagation rate for the new material design”
However, these newly amended elements are made obvious by the elements of “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” which are in the prior patent.
Accordingly, the double patenting rejection of claim s 1 and 8 are maintained.
Claim 5, however, is amended to recite A17475, A1-7150, and A17175 alloys which are not recited in the claims of 11755937 claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant asserts that the claim simply involve a mathematical concept and are not directed towards a mathematical concept and while the claims include limitations based on mathematical concepts disclosed in the specification the claims do not recite a mathematical concept and that the claims as a whole are directed towards improving predictive accuracy of multi-source models and therefore are more than a mere drafting effort and accordingly the claims recite a practical application.
In response the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument is that the claim itself doesn’t explicitly recite a mathematical equation and therefore the claim is not directed towards a mathematical concept even though the specification clearly discloses that the modeling is a mathematical one performed by mathematical operations. Indeed, the Applicant’s own arguments cite BMA which is Bayesian Model Averaging. BMA, by definition, is a statistical mathematical method that combines the mathematical predictions and mathematical estimates of multiple plausible mathematical calculations instead of using a single selected mathematical outcome.
Also, par 5 states that FI@ is an illustration of multi-source modeling in accordance with the invention. Figure 2 explicitly illustrates the multiplication of a function by a value W1XM1(x) and then adding all the multiplied functions together to equal a new predictive function y(x)
PNG
media_image1.png
642
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification also cites FIG. 3 and 4 as likelihood-based modeling and uncertainty-based modeling. These are clearly illustrations of mathematical operations.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states: “it is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
The Applicant also argues under STEP 2B the claim provides a technical improvement to the field of engineering because the instant application discloses multiple examples of how the claimed subject matter provides improvements over known modeling techniques. The Applicant states that the claimed subject matter provides for addressing challenges associated with Bayesian Model Averaging (BME) and that the multi-source model can be used to improve the predictive analysis of material-based designs.
In response the Applicant’s analysis is incorrect because they assert that under STEP 2B improvements are made to modeling techniques. Modeling techniques, as outlined in the specification, are mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the asserted improvements are to a mathematical idea and improvements to a technology must be an improvement to something beyond the abstract idea itself. The Applicant’s assertion that they improve modeling techniques is merely an assertion that their mathematical calculations are more accurate which is merely an improvement to the mathematical abstract idea itself. This is not an improvement to a technology.
The Applicant also asserts that the claim does not simply link the judicial exception to a particular technology but instead applies predictive analysis results to generate a second multi-source model that can estimate crack propagation with higher accuracy than the first multi-source model and therefore the claim is directed to statutory subject matter.
In response this argument is not persuasive. First the claim merely recites, at a high degree of generality, to simply generate the claimed higher accuracy model and does not provide any detail as to how such a model is achieved. Accordingly, the elements of “generating” a high accuracy model is merely a claim to an outcome rather than a recitation of a particular was to achieve the claimed higher accuracy. Moreover, the claim merely says that the higher accuracy model is for “a crack propagation rate for the new material design” which is simply a recitation to apply the higher accuracy mathematical model to crack propagation rate. This is insufficient application. MPEP 2106.05 states that limitations the courts have found not to be enough to quality as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding words that merely apply the judicial exception and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology.
In the instant claim the “generating” of the higher accuracy mathematical model is merely generally applied to predict crack propagation rate on a general material design. This merely takes a recited claim to an outcome of higher accuracy and further links it to crack propagation prediction. This is insufficient application that is generally linked to crack propagation prediction. The claim does not recite any elements that inform the material design or use the mathematical prediction in any way. The claim simply says to apply a higher accuracy mathematical model to a material deisign. This is merely applying mathematical function with input and calculating the mathematical output where the mathematical function is one that generates a number called crack propagation. The claimed material design is simply an input to a mathematical calculation. The material design is never improved/modified by the calculated prediction of crack propagation.
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
End Response to Arguments
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 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 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, 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 a model weight associated with each of the determined legacy models;
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 a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model,
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,
based on the predictive analysis,
a second multi-source model
to estimate, with a higher accuracy than the first multi-source model, a crack propagation rate for the new material design.
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 claims merely recite the elements is a slightly different order but retain the same meaning.
While the instant claims merely recite “to estimate” which is an intended use, the patent explicitly recites “and estimating”
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
Wherein the predictive analysis includes an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design determined based on 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
The instant claims is a slight rearrangement of elements what both claims have a predictive analysis of crack propagation on a new design determined based on the first 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 13. Instant App. 16/549,338 Claim 13 is rejected over Pat No. 11755937 Claim 12.
NOTE: the limitations of claims 8 – 11, 13 are substantially the same as those of claims 1 – 4, 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; determining a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design based on the model weight associated with each of the determined legacy models and determining a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, and generating, based on the predictive analysis, a second multi-source model to estimate, with a higher accuracy than the first multi-source model, a crack propagation rate for the new material design” which is a MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT IDEA of Bayesian Model Averaging.
A review of the specification shows that the models are mathematical equations.
For example, paragraph 21, 24, and 25 states:
PNG
media_image2.png
368
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
495
1225
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
763
1018
media_image4.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 “a crack propagation rate for the new material design” this merely links the use of a mathematical model to the field of calculating/estimating crack propagation. The new material design does not rely on or use the mathematical model/calculation in any way. In fact, the new material design is an input to the mathematical mnodel/calculation. Accordingly, the mathematical model takes as input data the new material design and simply performs a calculation. While the calculation is recited as being of “a higher accuracy” it is nonetheless simply performing a mathematical calculation. A supposed “improved” calculation is not an improvement to the new material design. An improvement to a mathematical model/calculation is merely an improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, putting into a mathematical calculation a new material design, even if the mathematical calculation is accurate is not an improvement to a technology other than the abstract idea itself.
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; determining a first multi-source model for new data for the new material design based on the model weight associated with each of the determined legacy models and determining a predictive analysis for a new dataset for the new material design based on the first multi-source model, and generating, based on the predictive analysis, a second multi-source model to estimate, with a higher accuracy than the first multi-source model, a 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. Additionally, while the claim recites to generate a model that is “a higher accuracy” model, this does not recite elements in addition to the abstract idea that are significantly more than the abstract idea because these merely recite to have a further mathematical model/calculation which is more accurate and this is simply part of 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: “wherein the predictive analysis includes an estimated crack propagation rate for the new material design determined based on the first 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 of the second multi-source model for the new material design is associated with an A17475 alloy and the determined legacy models are associated with at least one of an A1-7150 alloy or an A1-7175 alloy” which merely associates the mathematical model with a filed of use. Associating a mathematical model to a filed of use is no more than linking the mathematical model to a field of use and such linking is not indicative of a practical application nor is it significantly more.
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_image5.png
667
798
media_image5.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