Tag: simulation

Simulation accuracy/YOKOGAWA – T 2014/21 – 7 December 2022

This EPO’s Board of Appeal decision relates to a simulator for a facility in a plant. The simulator adjusts a simulation model based on actual data from the plant. All features were taken into account by the Board in assessing inventive step, but the objective technical problem (as formulated by the Board) was simply to find an alternative simulation algorithm.

Object of the Invention

  • plant simulation device and method for simulating a facility in the plant
  • claim 1 differs from the closest prior art (CPA) in that a first parameter is adjusted at the start of a operation of the plant and a second parameter is varied during operation, while the first parameter is kept constant at this stage

Appellant (part I)

  • enhance the model used for providing diagnostic results via the simulator thanks to successive adjustments of the first parameter and the second parameter, resulting in better process diagnosis for estimating possible deterioration
  • objective technical problem: how to improve the modelling accuracy of a simulator

Board (part I)

  • establishing a model is a purely mental act (see e.g. G 1/19, Reasons 106)
  • consequently, improving such a model, e.g. in terms of accuracy, also represents a purely mental act and thus corresponds to a non-technical problem
  • claim 1 does not specify any of the parameters that are adjusted, nor the type of plant that is controlled or the relationship between the first and the second parameter
  • reduction of arbitrarily chosen parameters also does not necessarily improve “modelling accuracy” because models with arbitrary parameters may never converge irrespective of the number of fixed or adjusted parameters
  • the distinguishing features cannot credibly relate to increasing the accuracy of the simulation process used for controlling
  • objective technical problem has to be derived from technical effects that are based on objectively established facts and are directly and causally related to the technical features of the claimed invention (see e.g. T 583/93, Reasons 7.5 and T 1341/16, Reasons 2.1.7)
  • objective technical problem: how to provide a plant simulation device having an alternative simulation algorithm compared to that of closest prior art

Appellant (part II)

  • even if the objective technical problem was formulated in such a less ambitious manner, the skilled person would not have arrived at the claimed subject-matter when starting from CPA
  • CPA did not present any hints towards fixing some parameters and adjusting others successively
  • the invention implied a change of perspective compared to CPA which adjusted all parameters simultaneously

Board (part II)

  • adjusting the parameters successively is a usual approach that is ubiquitously used in manual tuning of control systems
  • adjusting a first parameter at the start of the operation of the plant and varying the second parameter during operation is a mere straightforward choice which the skilled person would have selected depending on the circumstances
  • —> not inventive

Estimating airborne photovoltaic energy production/BOEING – T 1035/18 – 2 November 2021

This EPO’s Board of Appeal decision concerns a method for estimating energy savings due to solar cells on an aeroplane. The features of the method do not make a technical contribution, in particular since no further technical use is (implicitly) claimed for the determined energy savings.

Object of the Invention

  • estimating the electrical energy production of a photovoltaic system of an aircraft in flight

Appellant (part I):

  • method steps simulated the performance of a photovoltaic system under realistic conditions

Board (part I):

  • whether a simulation contributes to the technical character does not depend on the degree to which the simulation represents reality (G1/19, point 111)
  • nor does it depend on the technicality of the simulated system (G1/19, point 120)
  • whether the simulation achieves a technical effect depends on the further use of the numerical data of the simulation (G 1/19, point 124)

Appellant (part II):

  • technical effect is the further use of the predicted amount of electrical energy, namely translating this amount into estimated fuel savings
  • estimating the savings in pounds of fuel, i.e. in terms of weight, was a technical feature

Board (part II):

  • estimating the fuel savings for a flight is a nontechnical administrative activity

Appellant (part III):

  • estimated fuel savings imply a more precise estimation of the amount of fuel needed by the aircraft for a flight
  • this is a technical effect because refuelling the aircraft with the optimal amount of fuel would enable the aircraft to traverse the flight path more efficiently

Board (part III):

  • refuelling is a technical process, but it is not a direct consequence of the estimated fuel savings but would only occur as a result of a human decision (see also G 1/19, point 123)
  • the estimated fuel savings can also be used for business decisions, such as whether the savings merit the production and installation of the photovoltaic system or whether they permit a reduction of the flight tickets’ prices
  • the estimations do not have an implied technical use that can be the basis for an implied technical effect (see also G 1/19, points 98, 128)

Appellant (part IV):

  • subject matter describes accurate model for predicting the solar irradiance at a plurality of geographical points
  • the accurate model led to a more precise estimation of the fuel savings
  • according to G 1/19, point 111, the accuracy of a simulation might be taken into consideration in the assessment of inventive step

Board (part IV):

  • the simulation’s accuracy might play a role in the assessment of inventive step only if the simulation contributes to the technical character of the invention

Conclusion

The below figure shows according to G 1/19, point 85 and 86 how and when “technical effects” or “technical interactions” based on inter alia non-technical features may occur in the context of a computer-implemented process. In this decision T 1035/18 the software/ non-technical features do not contribute to the technical character of the invention via the output data. Therefore, the non-technical features are not considered for the assessment of inventive step.

Virtual welding – T 2594/17 and T 2607/17 – 20 May 2021

In this case, a system for virtual testing and inspection of a virtual weldment was claimed. The system has, inter alia, no link to a “real” weldment and no technical implementation. Therefore, the non-technical features are not considered for inventive step and the system is not inventive.

Object of the Invention

  • The claimed system renders a 3D image, which can also be an animated 3D image (of a virtual weldment) and processes this image by simulating testing and inspection of the virtual 3D weldment for a user training. It then displays the processed image and allows the user to move it around.
  • Claim 1 differs from the closest prior art (general purpose computer) in that it is configured to display images of virtual weldments, of virtual testing of those virtual weldments, and of the results of the virtual testing on those virtual weldments. It can also determine a pass/ fail condition based on those results (for a user test).

Appellant

  • The system processed virtual weldments and this indicated that it was part of a virtual reality system for generating the virtual weldments (VRAW system).
  • The claimed system should therefore be considered as a feedback component of the VRAW system, which contributed to the generation of virtual weldments of better quality.

Board

  • The claims do not define or suggest any connection or relation of the claimed system with the VRAW system.
  • The board does not see the claimed system as a feedback component of the VRAW system
  • Only a virtual weldment is generated, mainly for training purposes, and without any link to a particular “real life” weldment.
  • It is not a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, in whole or in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process (see G 1/19 e.g. points 1 and 2 of the Headnote).
  • –> not inventive

Conclusion

The below figure shows according to G 1/19, point 85 and 86 how and when “technical effects” or “technical interactions” based on inter alia non-technical features may occur in the context of a computer-implemented process. In this decision the software/ non-technical features do not contribute to the technical character of the invention via the input data/ output data/ technical implementation. Therefore, the non-technical features are not considered for the assessment of inventive step.

Pedestrians simulation – G 1/19 – March 10, 2021

In this article you will find key takeaways from G 1/19. The information is based, inter alia, on the presentation “Aftermath of G1/19” by Kemal Bengi of the Boards of Appeal.

Referal case T 489/14

  • The invention in the ex-parte case relates to a simulation of the movement of pedestrians through an environment (e.g. a building like a stadium or railway station).

Results of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

  • If the invention does not solve a technical problem, it has no distinguishing features that could contribute to inventive step (point 49).
  • Using the problem-solution approach, the analysis under Art. 56 EPC may reveal that a specific problem is not solved (i.e. a specific effect is not achieved) over the whole scope of the claim. In such cases, the … specific problem may not be considered as the basis for the inventive step analysis unless the claim is limited in such a way that substantially all embodiments encompassed by it have the desired effect (point 82).
  • Only those technical effects that are at least implied in the claims should be considered in the inventive step analysis (point 124).
  • The existence and technicality of the system to be simulated is not a relevant criterion for the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (points 109, 120).
  • A “direct link with physical reality” is not a necessary condition for contributing to the technical character of the claimed invention (point 88).
    • “Measurements” and “indirect measurements” are related to physical reality and are therefore of a technical nature (point 99).
  • An “adequately defined technical purpose” should not be taken as a generally applicable criterion of the COMVIK approach (point 133).
  • Simulation models and algorithms mainly define non-technical constraints to be considered in the context of the COMVIK approach, but may contribute to technicality if, for example
    • they are a reason for adapting the computer or its functioning or
    • they form the basis for a “further technical use” of the outcome of the simulation (points 110, 137).
  • The accuracy of a simulation is a factor that may have an influence on a technical effect going beyond the implementation of the simulation.
  • An indication of the “intended technical use” or “further technical use” of the simulation results in a claim could contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention (points 94, 124).

G 1/19 Conclusions

Pedestrians simulation/BENTLEY SYSTEMS – T 489/14 – 26 November 2021

The present decision is the reference decision to G 1/19, which was finally decided after decision G 1/19, as explained below. Among other things, it dealt with the question of whether the output data of a simulation result in the non-technical features of the simulation making a technical contribution and therefore being taken into account for the assessment of inventive step. At the end (conclusion), a bridge is again built to the decision G1/19.

Subject matter main request

  • The invention in the ex-parte case relates to a simulation of the movement of pedestrians through an environment (e.g. a building like a stadium or railway station).
Pedestrians simulation/BENTLEY SYSTEMS – T 489/14 – 26 November 2021

Board

  • The data produced by the method of claim 1, which reflects the behaviour of a crowd moving through an environment, does not contribute to a technical effect.
  • The potential use of such data is not limited to technical purposes, as it can be used e.g. in computer games or presented to a human for obtaining knowledge about the modelled environment.
  • Computer games and presentation of information are examples of non-technical uses of data falling within the scope of claim 1.
  • Therefore, there is no technical effect over the whole claimed scope derivable and the non-technical features are not contribute to the technical character.
  • –> no inventive step

Subject matter auxiliary request

  • Claim 1 of an auxiliary request additionally comprises the use of a profile for a pedestrian based on a set of measured attributes (in response to G 1/19, point 85: “technical input may consist of a measurement”).

Appellant

  • The additional feature leads to a “more accurate simulation”.

Board

  • A “more accurate simulation” per se cannot contribute to a technical character (cf. G 1/19, point 111).
  • Claim 1 does not contain a measurement step, but merely indicates that the attributes are somehow measured.
  • Therefore, no technical effect is derivable.
  • –> no inventive step

Conclusion

  • The below figure shows according to G 1/19, point 85 and 86 how and when “technical effects” or “technical interactions” based on inter alia non-technical features may occur in the context of a computer-implemented process (the arrows in the figure above represent interactions and not abstract data).
  • The subject matter of the main request deals with output data of a simulation, wherein the use is not limited to technical purposes.
  • According to G1/19, points 94 and 95: With respect to potential technical effects, the Enlarged Board added that if claimed data or data resulting from a claimed process was specifically adapted for the purpose of controlling a technical device, the technical effect that would result from this intended use of the data could be considered “implied” by the claim. However, this argument could be made only if the data had no other relevant uses, since otherwise the technical effect was not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention.
  • Furthermore, the subject matter of the auxiliary request deals with a profile for a pedestrian based on a set of measured attributes. According to the appellant, this should represent input data in the form of a measurement.
  • In G 1/19 the Enlarged Board had pointed out that technical effects could occur at the input of a computer-implemented process (see figure above) and that technical input could consist of a measurement.
  • The question to be answered is whether the input data/ measuring step and the simulation method are not merely juxtaposed, the output of the measuring step serving as an input for the simulation method, but interact to produce a combined technical effect.
  • An interaction may be present, for example, if the combination amounts to an indirect measurement of a specific physical entity by means of measurements of another physical entity (see G 1/19, point 99).
  • The method of claim 1 provides information about the movement of simulated pedestrians through a modelled building structure. Since the calculated information is neither used in a further step of the method nor specifically adapted for the purposes of an intended technical (and only relevant) use, it has to be investigated whether the information represents a measurement of a physical entity.
  • The modelled building structure does not correspond to a building structure that was measured, whether directly or through measurement of its physical effects on other physical entities.
  • In fact, the modelled building structure need not correspond to any existing building structure. Nor does the calculated information about the movement of simulated pedestrians represent a direct or indirect measurement of any of the real pedestrians (or other physical entities) that were measured in the process of generating the pedestrian profiles.
  • Hence, in the present case no physical entity (or process) can be identified which could potentially be measured by the method of claim 1 in the sense that its physical status or some physical property is described by information calculated on the basis of data obtained by a direct or indirect physical interaction with the entity.