DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are not a mental process as the whole claim cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the limitations can be performed in the human mind as they are the determination of constraints. A claim can have mental process limitations, as well as other limitations that cannot be performed mentally and still be a mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, while 3D operations cannot be performed mentally, the 3D aspect of the amendments merely describe constraints, which can be determined mentally. I.E. the constraints are for 3D finite elements. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are not a mathematical concept if they do not recite a mathematical concept and merely are based on or involve a mathematical concept.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the limitations of the claims explicitly recite mathematical concepts in view of the cited sections of the specification. The specification explicitly recites that all of these constraints are determined mathematically, making them a mathematical concept. And, when looking at the topology optimization, the end result is a system of reaction diffusion equations using the constraints. This is also a mathematical concept that is explicitly recited in the claims. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are eligible in view of Ex Parte Desjardins.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the improvement is not expressed through the additional elements of the claims. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 and 21 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 13-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 17-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 13 and 17 recite the abstract idea of simulating the design of a part based on where material is placed using finite element, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "one or more mechanical forces each forming a respective load case, each mechanical force comprising a … vector linked to one or more respective finite elements of the … finite element mesh, the … vector having a magnitude in Newtons or in a multiple thereof,” covers a mathematical concept including setting up a relationship or equation of a variable for an equation as seen on page 28 line 17, and vector variables on Page 21 line 26 – Page 22 Line 8, Page 29 Lines 1-2 and Page 33 Lines 1-11 . Additionally, the limitation of “one or more mechanical kinematic constraints each forming a respective boundary condition, the one or more mechanical kinematic constraints comprising a prescribed displacement constraint of one or more finite elements of the … finite element mesh, the one or more mechanical kinematic constraints each being data associated with one or more finite elements of the … finite element mesh,” covers mental processes including making a judgment about boundary conditions to be applied based on design conditions, or alternatively a mathematical concept including setting up a variable for an equation as seen on page 28 line 26 to page 29 line 7, and displacements on Page 20 Lines 21-27. Additionally, the limitation of “one or more parameters related to the material, the one or more parameters including a Young’s modulus of the material in which the mechanical part is formed, the one or more parameters being digital data representing the material,” covers mental processes including making a judgment about material parameters to be applied based on design conditions, or alternatively a mathematical concept including setting up a variable for an equation as seen on page 28 line 19 and page 29 lines 25-26. Additionally, the limitation of “a global quantity constraint relative to a global quantity of the material in the … finite element mesh; and” covers a mathematical concept including setting up a variable for an equation as seen on page 33 lines 4-14. Additionally, the limitation of “performing, … a topology optimization based on the … finite element mesh and based on the data associated to the finite element mesh, the topology optimization identifying an optimal distribution and layout of material in a given discrete space and maximizing stiffness by optimizing an objective function, the objective function being a compliance function computed from the one or more mechanical forces, the one or more mechanical kinematic constraints, and the Young's modulus, the topology optimization being performed among candidate material distributions, each candidate material distribution corresponding to a solution of a system of reaction-diffusion equations.” covers a mathematical concept including a series of calculations as shown on Page 25 Lines 6-17 and also on Page 34 Line 20 to Page 35 line 20. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations, or alternatively a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1, 13 and 17, the additional element of “3D finite element mesh”, “a digital vector”, “a computer”, “a processor”, “a storage”, “a server”, as well as “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 13, and “memory”, “graphical user interface”, in claim 17, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “obtaining with at least one of: (i) retrieval from a storage or a server, and (ii) user-computer interaction”, and “at least one of, by a computer: … (ii) storing a result of the topology optimization on memory” similarly recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “at least one of, by a computer: (i) displaying the 3D modeled object based on the topology optimization,” similarly recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The additional limitation of “result of the topology optimization being configured to be used for manufacturing a mechanical part formed in the material.”, similarly recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-21 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 13 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 1, 13 and 17, the additional element of “3D finite element mesh”, “a digital vector”, “a computer”, “a processor”, “a storage”, “a server”, as well as “a non-transitory computer readable medium” in claim 13, and “memory”, “graphical user interface”, in claim 17, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “obtaining with at least one of: (i) retrieval from a storage or a server, and (ii) user-computer interaction”, and “at least one of, by a computer: … (ii) storing a result of the topology optimization on memory” similarly recited in claims 1, 13 and 17, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or mathematical concept) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “at least one of, by a computer: (i) displaying the 3D modeled object based on the topology optimization,” similarly recited in claims 1, 9, 13 and 17, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and does not amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The additional limitation of “result of the topology optimization being configured to be used for manufacturing a mechanical part formed in the material.”, similarly recited in claims 1, 9, 13 and 17, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 14 and 18 are directed to further defining application of an additional function to the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 3, 15 and 19 are directed to further defining the applied function, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 4, 16 and 20 are directed to further defining the variables used in the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the characteristics of the function, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the parameters used in the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the parameters used in the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the value of a parameter, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining calculations of each iteration to reach convergence, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining iterative calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining the equations used, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the variables in the equations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: See reasons for allowance in the Non-Final Office action dated 11/4/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otomori et al. “Matlab code for a level set-based topology optimization method using a reaction diffusion equation”: Also teaches topology optimization of a finite element system using an reaction diffusion equations.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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 on 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188