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 .
Reply to Response to Office Action
This office action is the response to communications filed on June 22,
2026. Applicant amended claims 16-17, 21, 23-24, and 27 and cancelled claim 22. Examiner withdraws objections to claims 16-17, 21, 24, and 27. Claims 16-21 and 23-31 remain pending in the application.
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.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 16-21 and 23-31. Claims 16-21 and 23-31 are drawn to a computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core (i.e., a process).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 16-21 and 23-31.
Claim 16 recites:
A computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising: determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies, wherein the reactor core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid;
calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution;
obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core, wherein the actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core is obtained through measurements and/or a reference computation;
determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core;
determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the difference;
and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human using various parameters can determine an initial state of a reactor core, calculate power distribution and flux distribution, and calculate differences between target power distribution and actual power distribution, etc. The claimed invention discloses “heuristic approaches do typically feature clear restrictions in degrees of freedom for decreasing the overall 3D discrepancy between the 3D results of the model and the 3D observations” [0006]. Examiner notes that heuristics are mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that help people make decisions and solve problems quickly.
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 are directed towards mini-tasks (determining reactor core parameters, determining adaptation distribution, selecting constraints, etc.) for a computer implemented method that simulates an operation of a reactor core. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 17-21 and 23-31 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computer, storage medium, and data processors (independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a computer, storage medium, and data processors (independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 16-21 and 23-31 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-21 and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20150142413 A1 (“Touran”) in view of US 8755482 B2 (“Van Geemert”).
In regard to claim 16, Touran discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A computer implemented method for ([0053], “the controller … may include … computer processors … a personal computer system, mainframe computer system”) simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising ([0018], “FIG. 1A is … a system for generating a simulated … reactor core”): determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising ([0384], “processors … may generate a simulated operated … reactor core representative of an operated state of the initial simulated … reactor core”) a plurality of fuel assemblies ([0022], “FIG. 1E is … a … reactor core formed from multiple fuel assemblies”), wherein the reactor core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid;
calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution;
obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core, wherein the actual power distribution and/or ([0060], “the power distribution … associated with a state of a core of a reference nuclear reactor may be stored in the core parameter distribution source”) the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core is obtained through ([0096], “the neutronic parameter used to generate the initial set of … parameter values may include … neutron flux”) measurements and/or a reference computation ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine power and flux distribution.);
determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the nuclear reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core ([0123], “the deviation metric calculated ... may include any metric ... for quantifying a difference ... of the first calculated reactor core ... and the received reference reactor core”);
determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the difference ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can use a Fourier modal decomposition and a modal generalized perturbation theory.);
and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine a 3D adaptation distribution.).
Van Geemert discloses
wherein the core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid (column 3, lines 37-39, “the core of the reactor is partitioned in cubes … Each cube corresponds to a node”);
calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution (column 12, lines 5-6, “Solving Equation … is numerically equivalent to determining the flux distribution”);
obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core (column 1, lines 1-2, “The … method can be used to compute … neutron flux”).
Touran and Van Geemert are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of nuclear reactor cores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising: determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies, determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the nuclear reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core; determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the determined difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the determined difference; and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the determined difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation, as disclosed by Touran, wherein the core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid; calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution; obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to provide a cube, equation, and neutron flux for a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a cube, equation, and neutron flux to improve a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Touran’s nuclear core loading distribution generation method by adding cube partitions, flux distribution, and neutron flux, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to determine a beginning-of-cycle nuclear reactor core.
In regard to claim 17, Touran does not disclose wherein the initial state of the reactor core includes as parameters the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or the nodal cross-sections.
Van Geemert discloses
wherein the initial state of the reactor core includes as parameters the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or the nodal cross-sections (column 3, lines 38-39, “Each cube corresponds to a node of a grid” Examiner notes that a reactor core inherently has a specific size, density, and fuel loading structures.).
Touran and Van Geemert are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of nuclear reactor cores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising: determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies, determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the nuclear reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core; determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the determined difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the determined difference; and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the determined difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation, as disclosed by Touran, wherein the core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid; calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution; obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core, wherein the initial state of the reactor core includes as parameters the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or the nodal cross-sections, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to provide a cube for a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a cube to improve a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Touran’s nuclear core loading distribution generation method by adding cube partitions, flux distribution, neutron flux, and a cube, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to determine a beginning-of-cycle nuclear reactor core.
In regard to claim 18, Touran discloses
wherein constraints for a 3D cross-section perturbation distribution are defined in order to determine the 3D adaptation distribution for the perturbation ([0143], “the controller … is configured to generate a loading distribution by performing … perturbation processes”).
In regard to claim 19, Touran discloses
wherein the constraints are selected from a group comprising: constraining the 3D cross-section distribution perturbation only in variations in fast diffusion coefficients wished for ([0033], “FIG. 1P is … a perturbation procedure executable by system for generating a simulated … distribution” Examiner notes that a perturbation procedure can be used to constrain distribution perturbation in models with fast diffusion coefficients.);
constraining only variation in water density wished for ([0033], “FIG. 1P is … a perturbation procedure executable by system for generating a simulated … distribution” Examiner notes that a perturbation procedure can be used to constrain variations in water density.);
and constraining variations in a certain nodal transport cross-section type ([0033], “FIG. 1P is … a perturbation procedure executable by system for generating a simulated … distribution” Examiner notes that a perturbation procedure can be used to constrain variation in nodal transport.).
In regard to claim 20, Touran discloses
wherein the target power distribution ([0060], “the power distribution … associated with a state of a core of a reference nuclear reactor may be stored in the core parameter distribution source”) and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution ([0096], “the neutronic parameter used to generate the initial set of … parameter values may include … neutron flux”) is determined using a Nodal Expansion Method ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine power and flux distribution.).
In regard to claim 21, Touran discloses
wherein, for calculating the target power distribution ([0060], “the power distribution … associated with a state of a core of a reference nuclear reactor may be stored in the core parameter distribution source”) and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution ([0096], “the neutronic parameter used to generate the initial set of … parameter values may include … neutron flux”) the following equation is solved:
M
^
c
B
,
ϕ
ϕ
=
1
k
e
f
f
F
^
,
ϕ
wherein
M
^
represents the combined operator for neutron absorption, leakage and scattering,
F
^
represents neutron production through fission, Φ represents the 3D neutron flux distribution, cB represents the concentration of solution boron in the reactor core, and keff represents the effective multiplication factor of the reactor core ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine power and flux distribution.).
In regard to claim 23, Touran discloses
wherein determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the determined difference includes reducing the number of expansion coefficients ([0033], “FIG. 1P is … a perturbation procedure executable by system for generating a simulated … distribution” Examiner notes that a perturbation procedure can be used to determine distribution perturbation and associated differences.).
In regard to claim 24, Touran discloses
wherein determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the determined difference includes using a fitting approach by using determining the minimum of the difference between expansion coefficients calculated by applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory and the modal expansion coefficients determined using by using the Fourier modal decomposition ([0033], “FIG. 1P is … a perturbation procedure executable by system for generating a simulated … distribution” Examiner notes that a perturbation procedure can determine distribution perturbation and associated differences using a fitting approach.).
In regard to claim 25, Touran discloses
wherein the method further comprises: adapting the parameters of the initial state of the reactor core ([0384], “processors … may generate a simulated operated nuclear reactor core representative of an operated state of the initial simulated nuclear reactor core”), based on the 3D adaptation distribution ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine a 3D adaptation distribution.);
and recalculating, based on the adapted initial state, for each node a target power distribution and/or ([0060], “the power distribution … associated with a state of a core of a reference nuclear reactor may be stored in the core parameter distribution source”) the target 3D neutron flux distribution ([0096], “the neutronic parameter used to generate the initial set of … parameter values may include … neutron flux”).
In regard to claim 26, Touran does not disclose wherein the parameters include the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or nodal cross-sections.
Van Geemert discloses
wherein the parameters include the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, and/or the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or nodal cross-sections (column 3, lines 38-39, “Each cube corresponds to a node of a grid” Examiner notes that a reactor core inherently has a specific size, density, and fuel loading structures.).
Touran and Van Geemert are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of nuclear reactor cores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising: determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies, determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the nuclear reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core; determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the determined difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the determined difference; and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the determined difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation, as disclosed by Touran, wherein the core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid; calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution; obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core, wherein the parameters include the core grid, the core size, the nuclide densities, the material densities, and/or the nuclear fuel loading structure and/or nodal cross-sections, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to provide a cube for a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a cube to improve a method that models the core of a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to modify Touran’s nuclear core loading distribution generation method by adding cube partitions, flux distribution, neutron flux, and a cube, as disclosed by Van Geemert, to determine a beginning-of-cycle nuclear reactor core.
In regard to claim 27, Touran discloses
A computer implemented method for optimizing a reactor core, wherein the reactor core is simulated, wherein the method further includes the following step: permuting fuel assemblies based on the 3D adaptation distribution ([0014], “the nuclear reactor including a nuclear reactor core including … fuel assemblies arrangeable according to the subsequent … distribution determined by the controller” Examiner notes that permuting means to change the order or arrangement of a set of objects.);
optimizing the core loading pattern based on the 3D adaptation distribution ([0064], “the chosen … fuel arrangement within a fuel assembly may be chosen in an effort to optimize neutronic performance”);
and/or optimizing the fuel assembly design based on the 3D adaptation distribution ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine a 3D adaptation distribution.).
In regard to claim 28, Touran discloses
A computer program product comprising instructions, which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the computer implemented method ([0052], “FIG. 1B illustrates … program instructions … configured to carry out … steps described throughout the present disclosure”)
In regard to claim 29, Touran discloses
A data carrier signal carrying the computer program product ([0147], “in FIGS. 2A and 2B, … processors … of controller …are configured to transmit … signals … to the fuel handler controller”).
In regard to claim 30, Touran discloses
A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which ([0161], “FIG. 3B illustrates … program instructions … maintained in memory”), when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the computer implemented method ([0052], “FIG. 1B illustrates … program instructions … configured to carry out … steps described throughout the present disclosure”).
In regard to claim 31, Touran discloses
A data processing system comprising means for carrying out the computer implemented method ([0437], “Those skilled in the art will recognize that … processes described herein can be integrated into a data processing system”)
Response to Remarks
Applicant's submissions filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered, but they
are not persuasive. Claims 16-21 and 23-31 remain pending in this application. Pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant submits that “the steps of ‘determining a difference between the nodal target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the reactor core … determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT … and
determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation’ are not abstract ideas of organizing human activity or mental steps” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 8, paragraph 2), “Claim 16 requires determining modal expansion coefficients via a Fourier modal decomposition and applying Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory (MGPT) … The human mind is ‘not equipped’ to perform that computation” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 9, paragraph 2), “Contrary to the statements in the Office Action that the method is merely "apply it" on a generic computer, the claims are firmly rooted in the physical world and involve a practical application.” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 10, paragraph 2), and “the claimed combination of steps represents an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 11, paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Applicant cites a computer implemented method for simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising: determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies, wherein the reactor core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid; calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution; obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core, wherein the actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core is obtained through measurements and/or a reference computation; determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the reactor core; determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on the difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the difference;
and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation. These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human using various parameters can determine an initial state of a reactor core, calculate power distribution and flux distribution, and calculate differences between target power distribution and actual power distribution, etc. The claimed invention discloses “heuristic approaches do typically feature clear restrictions in degrees of freedom for decreasing the overall 3D discrepancy between the 3D results of the model and the 3D observations” [0006]. Examiner notes that heuristics are mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that help people make decisions and solve problems quickly.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) discusses certain methods of organizing human activity. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping as abstract ideas. Sub-groupings of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (as is the case in the Applicant’s claimed invention). These sub-groupings fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 are directed towards mini-tasks (determining reactor core parameters, determining adaptation distribution, selecting constraints, etc.) for a computer implemented method that simulates an operation of a reactor core. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 17-21 and 23-31 recite an abstract idea.
An evaluation is made as to whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computer, storage medium, and data processors (independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of a computer, storage medium, and data processors (independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims were analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
The identified additional elements in independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 16-21 and 23-31 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant submits that “The Office Action cites Touran as disclosing all the features of claim 16 except ‘the core is partitioned in cubes …’ ‘calculating … a nodal target power distribution …’ and ‘obtaining an actual power distribution …’ and cites Van Geemert as curing the deficiency of Touran … neither Touran, Van Geemert, nor their combination disclose the above emphasized language” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 12, paragraph 3), “Van Geemert entirely fails to teach the following crucial steps of the amended claim: - Determining a difference between a target distribution and an actual distribution … - Determining modal expansion coefficients by applying a Fourier modal decomposition … - Applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory … to these specific coefficients … - Determining a 3D adaptation distribution based on that perturbation.” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 13, paragraph 5 and page 14, lines 1-8), “Neither Touran nor Van Geemert disclose performing a ‘Fourier modal decomposition’ … to get ‘modal expansion coefficients’ and applying a ‘Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory’” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 14, paragraph 1), “There is no need or reason for the method of Touran to be modified to include ‘the core is partitioned in cubes …’ ‘calculating … a nodal target power distribution …’ and ‘obtaining an actual power distribution’.” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 14, paragraph 4), and “The combination by the Office is thus based on improper hindsight bias” (See Response to Office Action, Remarks, page 15, paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Touran discloses a computer implemented method for ([0053], “the controller … may include … computer processors … a personal computer system, mainframe computer system”) simulating an operation of a reactor core comprising ([0018], “FIG. 1A is … a system for generating a simulated … reactor core”): determining an initial state of the reactor core, the reactor core comprising ([0384], “processors … may generate a simulated operated … reactor core representative of an operated state of the initial simulated … reactor core”) a plurality of fuel assemblies ([0022], “FIG. 1E is … a … reactor core formed from multiple fuel assemblies”), wherein the actual power distribution and/or ([0060], “the power distribution … associated with a state of a core of a reference nuclear reactor may be stored in the core parameter distribution source”) the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core is obtained through ([0096], “the neutronic parameter used to generate the initial set of … parameter values may include … neutron flux”) measurements and/or a reference computation ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine power and flux distribution.); determining a difference between the target power distribution and the actual power distribution of the nuclear reactor core and/or determining a difference between the target 3D neutron flux distribution and the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core ([0123], “the deviation metric calculated ... may include any metric ... for quantifying a difference ... of the first calculated reactor core ... and the received reference reactor core”); determining modal expansion coefficients using a Fourier modal decomposition based on difference and applying a Modal Generalized Perturbation Theory, MGPT, to the modal expansion coefficients for determining a 3D cross-section distribution perturbation causing the difference ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can use a Fourier modal decomposition and a modal generalized perturbation theory.);
and determining a 3D adaptation distribution for the difference based on the determined 3D cross-section distribution perturbation ([0160], “the system … may include a reactor core measurement system” Examiner notes that a reactor core measurement system can determine a 3D adaptation distribution.) and Van Geemert discloses wherein the core is partitioned in cubes to constitute nodes of a grid (column 3, lines 37-39, “the core of the reactor is partitioned in cubes … Each cube corresponds to a node”);
calculating, based on the initial state, a nodal target power distribution and/or the target 3D neutron flux distribution (column 12, lines 5-6, “Solving Equation … is numerically equivalent to determining the flux distribution”); obtaining an actual power distribution and/or the actual 3D neutron flux distribution of the nuclear reactor core (column 1, lines 1-2, “The … method can be used to compute … neutron flux”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive
because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 16, as obvious by Touran in view of Van Geemert, is maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31, as obvious by Touran in view of Van Geemert, are maintained.
Regarding improper hindsight bias, “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, there is no requirement that an “express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 (“The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”) See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[W]e hold that the Board erred when it determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Okubo with Konishi's server-side plotting to render obvious the limitation ‘software ... to transmit the map with plotted locations to the first individual.’ This combination does not represent ‘impermissible hindsight’…. Rather, because Okubo's terminal-side plotting and Konishi's server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi."). Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 16, as obvious by Touran in view of Van Geemert, is maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 17-21 and 23-31, as obvious by Touran in view of Van Geemert, are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is (571) 272-
4252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm
ET. 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at
(571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or
proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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.
LISA H ANTOINE
Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights