DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 9/22/2023.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 9/22/2023 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, the variable “E” in matrix Bj is undefined in the claim, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Dependent claim 7-9 do not act to remedy the deficiency of claim 6 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
In claims 8 and 9, the variable “T” is undefined in the claims, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
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 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those identified in bold below:
A hybrid-equivalence-based power electronics system partition computing method, comprising: collecting statistics on a quantity of series loops and a quantity of parallel nodes in a simulation model according to a manual partitioning result or an automatic partitioning result of a simulation circuit, to obtain a model coupling vector; establishing a node voltage equation of each sub-partition according to a partitioning result of the simulation model; obtaining a permutation matrix and an inverse matrix of the permutation matrix according to a coupling relationship between an internal node of the sub-partition and a series loop and a parallel node in the simulation model, and implementing aggregation and separation of the internal node of the sub-partition, a series coupling node, and a parallel coupling node; performing classification conversion on the node voltage equation of the sub-partition according to a node voltage equation in the sub-partition and the permutation matrix, to obtain a classified node current vector and a classified partition impedance matrix; performing hybrid equivalent conversion on a hybrid excitation matrix, a hybrid voltage vector, and a hybrid equivalent matrix based on the classified node current vector and the classified partition impedance matrix; obtaining a coupling mapping matrix according to a sub-partition node and an injection relationship between a series loop current and a parallel node current of the model coupling vector; computing the model coupling vector according to the coupling mapping matrix of each sub-partition, the hybrid excitation matrix, the hybrid voltage vector, and the hybrid equivalent matrix; and computing a node voltage in each sub-partition according to the model coupling vector.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer, if recited, would not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are also are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represents mathematical relationships and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer, if recited, would not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
As noted above, with respect to claim 1, the method steps of the invention lack any recitation of a machine, let alone a recitation which creates a substantial tie so as to impose meaningful limitations on the claims scope. Accordingly, the method steps can be performed entirely manually. It is noted that, as so far as a computing device is implied, it would merely amount to a tool used in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore amount to “apply it.”
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, as so far as a computing device is implied, it would amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-9 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterizing the statistics, arranging, and various equations for computation and associated mathematical concepts), which represent mental processes and mathematical relationships. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Relevant prior art, Korobkov et al. (US 20100217577), discloses a method for a power grid configured to supply current to a plurality of elements of a circuit. Relevant prior art, Nakhla et al. (US 20100332202), discloses a method for simulation of general electrical circuits on parallel computing platforms. Relevant prior art, Suaya et al. (US 20070226659), discloses a system and method of circuit design using an electronic design automation tools. Relevant prior art Tatzlaff (US 7970591), discloses a method for simulating circuits using partitions. Relevant prior art, Yao et al. (CN 112084674, identified in IDS), discloses an electromagnetic transient parallel simulation method based on semi-implicit relaxation. Relevant prior art, Zhao et al. (CN 115495921, identified in IDS), discloses a power electronic system simulation method decoupled based on loop current.
While these references disclose a partitioned simulation circuit, complete with various nodes, vectors, matrices, and consideration of voltage and impedance, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US 20240232287) The present disclosure discloses a computing apparatus configured to perform a binary operation on multi-dimensional data, and related products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights