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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-22, and 24-25 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-14 recite steps or acts including applying, for the DR coupling, the Dirichlet boundary condition on interface; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 15-16, 19-22, and 24-25 recite steps or acts including applying a Dirichlet-Robin iteration method to solve the governing equations; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) Clam 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
185
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process)
PNG
media_image2.png
322
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process)
PNG
media_image3.png
57
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
307
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889)
PNG
media_image5.png
456
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
225
748
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
191
724
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889)
PNG
media_image8.png
418
750
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889)
PNG
media_image9.png
377
743
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
829
760
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889)
approximating, within the Dirichlet-Robin iteration, the Schur complement matrix by a scalar or diagonal matrix determined from a one-dimensional (1D) heat transfer analysis (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889) to reduce computation cost and ensure unconditional stability across heterogeneous regions; and
generating, based on the converged temperature, a spatially resolved temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry,
wherein the method improves computational efficiency and numerical stability of transient heat conduction simulations for additive manufacturing and provides acceleration of at least an order of magnitude compared with conventional fully coupled finite element simulations executed on identical computing hardware.
Clam 15 recites:
decomposing a solution domain into a set of subdomains, wherein a share boundary of two neighbor subdomains defines an interface therebetween; (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process 9)
coupling the two neighbor subdomains at the interface with a Dirichlet-Robin (DR) coupling that comprises a Robin parameter used to guarantee the continuity of a Robin boundary; (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process)
obtaining governing equations of the transient heat conduction for each subdomain with the DR coupling by applying the Dirichlet boundary condition on one side of interface for one of two neighbor subdomains and adding the Robin boundary condition on the other side of the interface for the other of two neighbor subdomains, wherein the governing equations comprises a Schur complement matrix that includes timestep terms, and an augmented matrix that is determined by the Robin parameter; (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process)
PNG
media_image11.png
269
744
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
248
704
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
859
763
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
189
744
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889)
approximating, within the Dirichlet-Robin iteration, the Schur complement matrix by a scalar or diagonal matrix determined from a one-dimensional (1D) heat transfer analysis (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process because the recited mathematical calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889) to reduce computation cost and ensure unconditional stability across heterogeneous regions; and
generating, based on the converged temperature, a spatially resolved temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry,
wherein the method improves computational efficiency and numerical stability of transient heat conduction simulations for additive manufacturing and provides acceleration of at least an order of magnitude compared with conventional fully coupled finite element simulations executed on identical computing hardware.
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “computer-implemented … a computing system comprising one or more processors” (Claim 1 and 15), “A non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform” (Claim 13 and 24), “computing system comprising: the one or more processors configured to operably perform” (Claim 14 and 25) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “computing system” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant post-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amount to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)): “generating, based on the converged temperature, a spatially resolved temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry (Insignificant extra-solution activity because it is imply the display the result of the abstract idea.)”
Also, the limitation “to reduce computation cost and ensure unconditional stability across heterogeneous regions;” and “wherein the method improves computational efficiency and numerical stability of transient heat conduction simulations for additive manufacturing and provides acceleration of at least an order of magnitude compared with conventional fully coupled finite element simulations executed on identical computing hardware” is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer-implemented … a computing system comprising one or more processors” (Claim 1 and 15), “A non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform” (Claim 13 and 24), “computing system comprising: the one or more processors configured to operably perform” (Claim 14 and 25) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims recite the limitation “generating, based on the converged temperature, a spatially resolved temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry” (Insignificant extra-solution activity because it is imply the display the result of the abstract idea.) which is an insignificant post-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amount to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Further the additional element of “the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry” (Claim 1 and 15) is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Also, the limitation “to reduce computation cost and ensure unconditional stability across heterogeneous regions;” and “wherein the method improves computational efficiency and numerical stability of transient heat conduction simulations for additive manufacturing and provides acceleration of at least an order of magnitude compared with conventional fully coupled finite element simulations executed on identical computing hardware” is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12, 16, and 19-22 recite:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the boundary Γ comprises two complementary boundaries Γ=Γ.sub.D∪Γ.sub.N and Γ.sub.D∩Γ.sub.N=ø, wherein Γ.sub.D donates the Dirichlet boundary condition that is a temperature boundary condition, and Γ.sub.N donates the Neumann boundary condition that is a heat flux boundary condition (mathematical concepts).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the time integration form of the temperature filed in one subdomain satisfies the relationship of
PNG
media_image15.png
22
196
media_image15.png
Greyscale
wherein the superscript n represents an iteration number of time step while subscript i denotes the variable belongs to subdomain Ω.sub.i, (i=1, 2), θ.sub.i is a coefficient used to evaluate influences of different time schemes on the current value and 0≤θ.sub.i≤1, u.sub.i.sup.n+θ represents the temperature obtained by a mixed time scheme, u.sub.i.sup.n is the temperature value at the n-th time step, and u.sub.i.sup.n+1 denotes the temperature value at the (n+1)-th time step (mathematical concepts).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein when θ.sub.i=0, the time integrators are a forward Euler, while when θ.sub.i=1, the time integrators are a backward Euler (mathematical concepts).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the augmented Robin term is a function of time step, relative material properties and spatial mesh size. (mathematical concepts)
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of approximating, withing the Dirichlet-Robin iteration, the Schur complement matrix comprises: obtaining an approximation for the Schur complement matrix by analyzing a one-dimensional (1D) heat transfer problem (mathematical concepts); and extending the approximation to multiple dimensions including two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) heat transfer problems (mathematical concepts).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the approximation comprises: approximating A.sub.33 with a scalar value of a for the 1D problem; and approximating the Schur complement matrix S.sup.(1) in the 1D problem by the scalar value of α, which is a function of the material property, spatial discretization and timestep, wherein the scalar value of α (the Robin parameter) for the 1D problem is
PNG
media_image16.png
125
542
media_image16.png
Greyscale
(mathematical concepts)
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the step of extending the approximation comprises: approximating the Schur complement matrix by a diagonal matrix for 2D or 3D problems, wherein the diagonal values of the diagonal matrix are computed based on the definition of the Robin parameter in Eq. (C8) for each node on the shared interface (mathematical concepts).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein when A.sub.33=S.sup.(1), the timestep iteration converges in one iteration (mathematical concepts).
12. The method of claim 1, being capable of capturing a large temperature gradient around a melting pool region with one-hundred times acceleration (insignificant extra-solution activity –field of use).
16. The method of claim 15, wherein when the augmented matrix is equal to the Schur complement matrix, the timestep iteration converges in one iteration (mathematical concepts).
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the augmented Robin term A.sub.33.sup.(2)u.sub.3.sup.(2),n+1 is a function of time step, relative material properties and spatial mesh size, (mathematical concepts).
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the step of approximating, withing the Dirichlet-Robin iteration, the Schur complement matrix comprises: approximating the augmented matrix with a scalar for a one-dimensional (1D) case; and extending it to a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D ) case by a diagonal matrix (mathematical concepts).
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the approximated Schur complement matrix S.sup.(1) in the 1D problem is the scalar value of
PNG
media_image17.png
124
443
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(mathematical concepts)
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the step of extending the approximation to a 2D/3D case comprises: approximating the Schur complement matrix by a diagonal matrix for 2D or 3D problems, wherein the diagonal values of the diagonal matrix are computed based on the definition of the Robin parameter in Eq. (C13) for each node on the shared interface (mathematical concepts).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-22, and 24-25 are allowed.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-22, and 24-25 are considered allowable since when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims 1 and 15 as whole.
Specifically, while Roux (“Domain Decomposition Methodology with Robin Interface Matching Conditions for Solving Strongly Coupled Problems”) teaches a method for accelerating simulation of transient heat conduction including decomposing a solution domain into a set of subdomains (section 2.1
PNG
media_image18.png
352
718
media_image18.png
Greyscale
), wherein a share boundary of two neighbor subdomains defines an interface therebetween (section 2.1
PNG
media_image19.png
82
721
media_image19.png
Greyscale
);
coupling the two neighbor subdomains at the interface with a Dirichlet-Robin (DR) coupling (section 3.2 “Dirichlet-Robin Method”) that comprises a Robin parameter used to guarantee the continuity of the Robin boundary (section 3.2
PNG
media_image20.png
347
736
media_image20.png
Greyscale
);
obtaining governing equations of the transient heat conduction for each subdomain with the DR coupling (section 3.2 equation (43) and (44)) by applying the Dirichlet boundary condition on one side of interface for one of two neighbor subdomains and adding the Robin boundary condition on the other side of the interface for the other of two neighbor subdomains (section 3.2
PNG
media_image21.png
478
720
media_image21.png
Greyscale
), wherein the governing equations comprises a Schur complement matrix that includes both the mass and timestep terms, and an augmented matrix that is determined by the Robin parameter (section 3.2 equation (43) and (44));
obtaining an approximation of the augmented matrix (section 3.2 “augmentation matrix”), and assigning the approximated augmented matrix to the Schur complement matrix (section 3.2
PNG
media_image22.png
32
713
media_image22.png
Greyscale
; and
applying a Dirichlet-Robin iteration method to solve the governing equations for the multi-time step until the solution is converged (section 3.2
PNG
media_image23.png
86
731
media_image23.png
Greyscale
), and
Yavari et al. (US 12093614 B2) teaches systems and apparatus including computer programs encoded a computer storage medium for simulating heat transfer in additive manufacturing (Abstract) using Dirichlet and Robin boundary conditions (Col. 7 lines 50-55) with low computational complexity, thus enabling its use in the field (Col. 2 lines 15-19),
none of the prior art of record discloses a method for accelerating simulation of transient heat conduction in an additive manufacturing of process including
PNG
media_image24.png
890
740
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
743
756
media_image25.png
Greyscale
as disclosed in independent claims 1 and 15 of the instant application in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, applicants have argued regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 that:
PNG
media_image26.png
370
804
media_image26.png
Greyscale
As rejected above, it is Examiner’s position that the following additional elements of “computer-implemented … a computing system comprising one or more processors” (Claim 1 and 15), “A non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform” (Claim 13 and 24), “computing system comprising: the one or more processors configured to operably perform” (Claim 14 and 25) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “computing system” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As per “with a clear technological improvement: increased computational efficiency and numerical stability.”, the improvement is in the abstract idea itself, which cannot be an improvement in technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”).
Furthermore, applicants have argued regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 that:
PNG
media_image27.png
301
796
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
143
795
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees. Unlike Diamond v. Diehr where the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent, the claimed limitation of the instant invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because “generating, based on the converged temperature, a spatially resolved temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry” is insignificant extra-solution activity because it is imply the display the result (“temperature distribution”) from mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). Further the additional element of “additive manufacturing” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This is more akin to in re Floor (In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons.").
As per applicants’ argument regarding Step 2B, it is Examiner position that unlike BASCOM where the claim in BASCOM recited a "technology based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcome the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems, the additional element of the instant invention “generating….temperature distribution of the additive manufacturing part for use in predicting melting pool geometry” is insignificant extra-solution activity because it is imply the display the result (“temperature distribution”) from mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). Further the additional element of “additive manufacturing” in the instant invention is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This is more akin to in re Floor (In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons."). The computation merely applies the transient heat conduction problem to the field of the additive manufacturing. Thus, considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application; 101 rejection maintains.
Conclusion
4. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188