DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 09/04/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system.
Claims 11-20 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A data simulation system, comprising:
an execution engine [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function] storing a plurality of operation combinations [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function], wherein the execution engine comprises a type matcher, an executor, and an analyzer, wherein the executor is coupled to the type matcher and the analyzer [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function],
wherein the type matcher receives a simulation command [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering], and generates a simulation logic group according to a simulation type in the simulation command [insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting/outputting],
wherein the executor executes simulation processing on data according to the simulation logic group to generate a simulation result [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function],
wherein the analyzer determines a matching degree between the simulation result and a preset result according to the simulation type [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)],
wherein when the matching degree is less than a threshold value, the analyzer adjusts the simulation logic group [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)], and inputs the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, to the executor, so that the executor repeatedly executes the simulation processing [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function],
wherein when the matching degree is greater than the threshold value, the analyzer stores the simulation logic group [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “storing”, “receiving” “execution engine”, “type matcher”, “an executor”, “an analyzer”, and “generating”. The additional elements of “receiving” and “storing” are insignificant extra solutions, namely the gathering or storing of data related to the steps of the claims. In addition, the additional elements of “execution engine”, “type matcher”, “an executor”, “an analyzer” recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). In addition, the additional element of “generating” is insignificant post solution, data output. Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving” and “storing” are insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or storing). See MPEP 2106.04(d) example, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “execution engine”, “type matcher”, “an executor”, “an analyzer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “generating” in insignificant post-solutions (i.e. mere data output). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iii)- presenting offers to potential customers.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 10, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering and/or a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per Claims 11-20, claims 11-20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-10, and as such are similar rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2021/0019459 A1 issued to LIU et al in view of US Publication No. 2023/0170098 A1 issued to WANG et al.
1. LIU et al discloses a data simulation system, comprising:
an execution engine storing a plurality of operation combinations, wherein the execution engine comprises a type matcher, an executor, and an analyzer, wherein the executor is coupled to the type matcher and the analyzer (See: [0132] Referring to FIG. 7, based on one same inventive concept, an embodiment of the present disclosure also provides a design device 70 for a fine metal mask, including: [0133] an acquisition module 71 configured to establish a three-dimensional simulation model of the fine metal mask; [0134] an operation module 72 configured to perform simulation operation; [0135] a determination module 73 configured to determine whether the simulation result matches the preset result; [0136] an adjustment module 74 configured to adjust the design parameter according to the simulation result if no, and select the design parameter if yes.),
wherein the type matcher receives a simulation command, and generates a simulation logic group according to a simulation type in the simulation command (See: [0009] performing a simulation operation on the three-dimensional simulation model according to the material property parameters and simulation conditions, in order to obtain a simulation result of the fine metal mask after a mesh stretching, and the simulation conditions are configured to represent constraint conditions of the fine metal mask during the mesh stretching, and the simulation result comprises at least one of a deformation condition, a stress condition and a strain condition of the fine metal mask after the mesh stretching is performed; [0114] In addition to using the method in this embodiment to obtain material property parameters, methods in related art may also be configured to obtain material property parameters),
wherein the executor executes simulation processing on data according to the simulation logic group to generate a simulation result (See: [0115] After step S101 is performed, step S102 is performed, that is, a simulation operation is performed on the three-dimensional simulation model according to the material property parameters and the simulation conditions to obtain a mesh stretched on the fine metal mask simulation results, the simulation conditions are configured to indicate the force of the fine metal mask when the mesh is stretched, the simulation results include the deformation of the fine metal mask after the mesh stretch, at least one of the stress condition and strain condition),
wherein the analyzer determines a matching degree between the simulation result and a preset result according to the simulation type (See: [0082] determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result; adjusting the design parameters according to the simulation result if no, and selecting the design parameter if yes.; [0118] After step S102 is executed, step S103 is executed, that is, determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result. The preset result can indicate the ideal state that the fine metal mask does not have a wrinkle or has a small bending (for example Bending≤100 um) after the mesh stretching, and determining whether the simulation result matches the preset result is to determine whether the simulation result, compared with the deformation result of the preset result, is within the allowable error range. For example, the allowable error range is 3%, and the error of the deformation of the simulation result is only 2% compared to the deformation of the preset result, then it is determined that the simulation result matches the preset result. If the error between the deformation of the simulation result and the deformation of the preset result is 5%, and it is determined that the simulation result does not match the preset result; [0120] obtaining a deformation condition of a preset path in the displacement cloud diagram; and determining whether the deformation condition matches a preset deformation condition in the preset result, wherein, determining that the simulation result matches the preset result if yes, and determining that the simulation result doesn't match the preset result if no),
wherein when the matching degree is less than a threshold value, the analyzer adjusts the simulation logic group, and inputs the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, to the executor, so that the executor repeatedly executes the simulation processing (See: [0039] an adjustment module configured to adjust the design parameters according to the simulation result if no, and to select the design parameters if yes.; [0082] determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result; adjusting the design parameters according to the simulation result if no, and selecting the design parameter if yes.; [0127] After step S103 is executed, step S104 is executed, that is, if no, the design parameters are adjusted according to the simulation result to achieve the purpose of optimizing the design, and, the design parameters are determined if yes),
wherein when the matching degree is greater than the threshold value (See: [0082] determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result; adjusting the design parameters according to the simulation result if no, and selecting the design parameter if yes.; [0118] After step S102 is executed, step S103 is executed, that is, determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result. The preset result can indicate the ideal state that the fine metal mask does not have a wrinkle or has a small bending (for example Bending≤100 um) after the mesh stretching, and determining whether the simulation result matches the preset result is to determine whether the simulation result, compared with the deformation result of the preset result, is within the allowable error range. For example, the allowable error range is 3%, and the error of the deformation of the simulation result is only 2% compared to the deformation of the preset result, then it is determined that the simulation result matches the preset result. If the error between the deformation of the simulation result and the deformation of the preset result is 5%, and it is determined that the simulation result does not match the preset result; [0120] obtaining a deformation condition of a preset path in the displacement cloud diagram; and determining whether the deformation condition matches a preset deformation condition in the preset result, wherein, determining that the simulation result matches the preset result if yes, and determining that the simulation result doesn't match the preset result if no),
LIU et al does not disclose but WANG et al discloses the analyzer stores the simulation logic group (See: [0028] The simulation module 103 is a module for storing and running a preset simulation logic program; [0055] The data management module 105 may store and manage data related to the simulation system 100. For example, these data may include preset data, real-time data, and user data. Here, the preset data may refer to data used by the developer when developing the simulation system 100, which may be provided to the customer together with the simulation system 100).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine simulation system as taught by WANG et al to a three-dimensional simulation model method of LIU et al would be to improve the simulation accuracy of the simulation system (WANG et al, [0030]).
2. LIU et al discloses the data simulation system according to claim 1, wherein the simulation command comprises data source information, wherein the execution engine further comprises a data connector, wherein the data connector obtains the data according to the data source information and then inputs the data into the executor, wherein the executor executes the simulation processing on the data through a simulation data group to generate the simulation result (See: [0009] performing a simulation operation on the three-dimensional simulation model according to the material property parameters and simulation conditions, in order to obtain a simulation result of the fine metal mask after a mesh stretching, and the simulation conditions are configured to represent constraint conditions of the fine metal mask during the mesh stretching, and the simulation result comprises at least one of a deformation condition, a stress condition and a strain condition of the fine metal mask after the mesh stretching is performed; [0115] After step S101 is performed, step S102 is performed, that is, a simulation operation is performed on the three-dimensional simulation model according to the material property parameters and the simulation conditions to obtain a mesh stretched on the fine metal mask simulation results, the simulation conditions are configured to indicate the force of the fine metal mask when the mesh is stretched, the simulation results include the deformation of the fine metal mask after the mesh stretch, at least one of the stress condition and strain condition).
3. LIU et al discloses the data simulation system according to claim 1, wherein the analyzer stores a preset result comparison table, wherein the analyzer obtains the preset result corresponding to the simulation logic group according to the preset result comparison table (See: comparison table 1).
As per Claims 11-13, claims 11-13 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-3, and as such are similar rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
LIU et al discloses: [0115] After step S101 is performed, step S102 is performed, that is, a simulation operation is performed on the three-dimensional simulation model according to the material property parameters and the simulation conditions to obtain a mesh stretched on the fine metal mask simulation results, the simulation conditions are configured to indicate the force of the fine metal mask when the mesh is stretched, the simulation results include the deformation of the fine metal mask after the mesh stretch, at least one of the stress condition and strain condition. [0118] After step S102 is executed, step S103 is executed, that is, determining whether the simulation result matches a preset result. The preset result can indicate the ideal state that the fine metal mask does not have a wrinkle or has a small bending (for example Bending≤100 um) after the mesh stretching, and determining whether the simulation result matches the preset result is to determine whether the simulation result, compared with the deformation result of the preset result, is within the allowable error range. For example, the allowable error range is 3%, and the error of the deformation of the simulation result is only 2% compared to the deformation of the preset result, then it is determined that the simulation result matches the preset result. If the error between the deformation of the simulation result and the deformation of the preset result is 5%, and it is determined that the simulation result does not match the preset result.
WANG et al discloses: [0062] According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, in step 502, the external input (e.g., at least one of the domain knowledge, the data, the event and the learnable parameter) may be converted into at least one of the rule, the parameter and the data involved in the behavior in the preset simulation logic program. Subsequently, in step 503, the converted at least one of the rule, the parameter and the data may be applied to the preset simulation logic program and the preset simulation logic program is run to obtain and output the simulation result data.
[0063] Furthermore, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the behavior described in the simulation logic program may be directly intervened. For example, a user input for modifying the behavior in the simulation logic program may be received. Then, in step 502, at least one of the rule, the parameter and the data may be modified according to the user input. Subsequently, in step 503, the modified at least one of the rule, the parameter and the data may be applied to the preset simulation logic program and the preset simulation logic program is run to obtain and output the simulation result data.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render
obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of:
“wherein the analyzer obtains at least one influence factor of the simulation logic group according to the simulation type, wherein the analyzer adjusts the at least one influence factor in the simulation logic group and inputs the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, into the executor, wherein the executor repeatedly executes the simulation processing according to the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, and repeatedly outputs the simulation result” in combination with the remaining steps recited in the independent claim and claim 4,
“a design engine comprising a logic editor, a database, and a simulation designer, wherein the database comprises a logic library and a simulation type library, wherein the logic editor receives a design command and then generates a recommended simulation logic group according to the simulation type in the design command, wherein the simulation designer receives an adjustment command to adjust the recommended simulation logic group and then generates the simulation logic group” in combination with the remaining steps recited in the independent claim and claim 5,
“wherein the analyzer adjusting the simulation logic group and repeatedly executing the simulation processing comprises: obtaining at least one influence factor of the simulation logic group according to the simulation type through the analyzer, adjusting the at least one influence factor in the simulation logic group through the analyzer and inputting the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, into the executor, executing repeatedly the simulation processing through the executor according to the simulation logic group, which is adjusted, and repeatedly outputting the simulation result” in combination with the remaining steps recited in the independent claim and claim 14
“a design engine comprising a logic editor, a database, and a simulation designer, wherein the database comprises a logic library and a simulation type library, receiving a design command through the logic editor and then generating a recommended simulation logic group according to the simulation type in the design command; and receiving an adjustment command through the simulation designer to adjust the recommended simulation logic group and then generating the simulation logic group” in combination with the remaining steps recited in the independent claim and claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 08/13/2026
Prosecution Insights