DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Examiner has acknowledged that many of the previously-cited deficiencies for the claims have been resolved per the amendments. However, additional issues have arisen consequently to the amendments. Particularly, additional claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been noted, as set forth in this office action.
Examiner notes that the form of the claim language still appears to contain idiomatic English that fails to conform with current U.S. practice. The claims remain generally narrative and indefinite and appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Examiner advises closely reviewing the claimed matter for such deficiencies and further amending so as to clearly and definitively point out the claimed invention. Applicant is advised that any further amendments will be subject to evaluation with regard to the original disclosure to ensure that all claimed matter is sufficiently supported by the specification.
Response to Arguments
Amendment to the Abstract
Examiner acknowledges the changes made to the abstract and receipt of the marked-up version of the abstract. The abstract is now in compliance with the guidelines set forth by the office.
Amendment to the specification
Examiner notes that a statement was received pertaining to an amended Specification on Page 2 of the correspondence received on 08/14/2025. However, Examiner was unable to identify any amendments to the specification beyond the updated Abstract. The specification remains objected to because no substitute specification to resolve the cited deficiencies has been received.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended claims 1-6 in response to the objected-to informalities cited in the previous office action.
However, the claims remain objected to because the form of the claims remains improper. Per MPEP 608.01(m), “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. The format of the claims includes multiple elements or steps which are delimited by a semicolon within larger sections of claim limitations that are separated by line indentation. The form of the claims should be modified such that each distinct element of the claimed methodology (indicated by the usage of a semicolon per this application) should be separated by line indentation.
Furthermore, the claims remain objected to for the cited informalities noted within this office action. Applicant is advised to carefully review the claimed matter for any deficiencies noted by the Examiner.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant has amended claims 1-6 in response to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The amendments appear to sufficiently overcome the previously cited rejections. Accordingly, the rejections haven been withdrawn.
However, the amendments to the claims have introduced additional deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as set forth in this office action and therefore the claims remain rejected under a different grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite an additional step to include the manufacturing of a ceramic matrix composite bolt based on the final mesoscopic parameters and the final macroscopic parameters.
Applicant argues that the inclusion of this step integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite bolt based on the mesoscopic parameters and the macroscopic parameters and that the step of manufacturing is not a mental process.
While the examiner agrees that manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite bolt is a step that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, Examiner disagrees that the inclusion of this step is sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The manufacturing limitation has been identified by the examiner as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The limitation includes the idea of an outcome or a solution without specifically and particularly disclosing the specific steps required to demonstrate how a solution to a problem is particularly accomplished. Stating manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite bolt is based on the parameters obtained as part of the mental process does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and merely amounts to reciting the words “apply it” with regard to the values obtained as part of the method steps which can be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive physical aids.
Applicant further argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The applicant asserts that the improvement of the technical field of manufacturing of ceramic matrix composite bolt is supported by the specification.
Examiner disagrees. There are no recited elements of the claims which alter or improve the actual manufacturing process of the ceramic matrix composite bolt. The improvement appears to be that of the mental process itself. That is, the asserted improvement is the optimization of the selection of mesoscopic and macroscopic parameters by which the manufacture of the bolt is based off of. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “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.”.
The claims appear to recite steps which can be performed practically in the human mind using pen and paper as assistive physical aids but recite the mental processes and mathematical concepts as being performed in a CAD environment, which is considered to be a generic computing component recited at a high level of generality and functioning in its normal capacity. The CAD environment is used to execute modeling of various components and to perform corresponding analyses and calculations regarding the modeled components. A human being could draft models of objects on paper and associate the drawings with specified mathematical parameters by which to perform analytical calculations with regard for the model. Though the calculations can be complex and would be performed more easily and quicker in a computer environment, the recited steps can still be practically performed using pen and paper or other physical assistive aids. Furthermore, the courts to not distinguish between mental processes that are performed using a computer versus those that are performed entirely in the human mind. The additional elements recited in the claims do not effectively integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment, well-understood routine and conventional activity, and mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a computer environment or the recitation of the equivalent of the words “apply it”.
For the reasons stated herein, along with the updated rejection of this office action, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not fairly disclose or suggest the generation of a solid model and dividing the model into finite units. Applicant further argues that Liang does not disclose particularly the Boolean subtraction operation on the preform model and the cubic model with the bolt cavity; and subtracting the cubic model with the bolt cavity from the preform model to form a ceramic matrix composite bolt. Applicant argues that Liang’s model fails to consider the macroscopic parameters.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art does not explicitly disclose or fairly suggest the particular methodology by which the ceramic matrix composite bolt is modeled such that one having skill in the art would readily arrive at the claimed invention. The rejections of claims 1-6 have accordingly been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of the IDS received on 08/14/2025. The references included therein have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to for multiple informalities.
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The numbering of the paragraphs of the specification is improper. The numbers should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]).
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification were noted in the non-final office action dated 05/15/2025.
Claim Objections
The claims 1-6 are objected to. While there is no statutory requirement for the form of claims, the present Office practice suggests that each claim begin with a capital letter and ends with a period and furthermore, for the claims which set forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step should be separated by a line indentation. The numbering of the steps throughout the claims is inconsistent with standard practice in the drafting of claims. Several instances of a “step”, followed by a corresponding number (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, etc.) are recited in the claims. This particular organization of the claim is unnecessary and makes the claims unclear and lack conciseness.
Examiner recommends removal of “step #.#” throughout the claims and suggests following proper new line indentation practices to distinguish steps and sub-steps of the methodology rather than relying on numbered steps. For example, Claim 1 could be rewritten to recite:
A structural integration design method for a ceramic matrix bolt preform, wherein the structural integration design method comprises:
preform modeling comprising:
setting a ply layer thickness…;
setting a first diameter of needled fiber bundles…;
building a plurality of cylinder models…;
performing a first Boolean subtraction…;
subtracting the needled fiber bundle model…;
structure modeling comprising:
building a CAD solid model…;
…
While the examiner does recognize that the depth of the indentation of the claims may be increasingly complex, the separation by indentation is necessary per MPEP 608.01(i) and 608.01(m) to follow the proper form of claims.
Applicant should note any modifications per this objection and accordingly modify any references made in the dependent claims which refer back to steps distinguished by the “step #.#” formatting.
Claim 5 is objected to because the language of the claim is not particularly clear, especially with regard to the section containing:
in a case of meeting one of situations:
[equation]] where k is a real number…
a nonlinear solution in the static force…
determining that a structure of the…
in a case that both the situations are not met…
The depth of the embedded language in the “if…then” structure of the claim makes it difficult to understand. To provide conciseness and clarity, examiner recommends revising claim language and appropriately indenting the claim limitations such that each individual step or element is distinguished in the claim.
The claims alternate between the use of “needled ceramic matrix composite” and “ceramic matrix composite”. Examiner suggests revising the claims for consistency regarding the term “needled”.
Claim 1 recites, in step 4, “an predetermined allowable press”, which should instead recite “a predetermined allowable press”.
Claim 3 recites “an alternate sequence” which should instead read “an alternating sequence”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 introduces particularly the limitation step 4 determining whether the ceramic matrix composite bolt model is qualified by comparing the failure load with an predetermined allowable press for a target working condition;. When read in light of the specification, it does not appear that adequate support is present to establish what “qualified” means with regard to a ceramic matrix composite bolt model. Furthermore, when read in light of the specification, adequate support does not appear to be present for “a predetermined allowable press” or “a target working condition”. The specification describes step 4 to entail an optimization but does not describe the optimization in sufficient detail to support what is claimed. The specification has support for changing the mesoscopic and structural parameters of the preform, as well as the macroscopic parameters of a required structure to meet actual requirements in paragraphs [0044-0046]. This is insufficient to support the claimed matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “stacking a plurality of ply layer in a direction perpendicular to the ply layer”. The discrepancy between the usage of “plurality” and “ply layer” is unclear. Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean “stacking a second ply layer of a plurality of ply layers in a direction perpendicular to the first ply layer” (assuming that the first instance of a ply layer be changed to a first ply layer). If the applicant would like to demonstrate that more than two ply layers are used to build the ply layer model, the language needs to be modified as such to make that clear. Examiner believes this is the intent, based on the recitation of n as the number of the plurality of ply layers. In such case, examiner interprets the claim to read “stacking a plurality of ply layers on top of the first ply layer, wherein each ply layer of the plurality of ply layers is stacked in a direction perpendicular to the ply layer below, such that each ply layer of the plurality of ply layers has an alternate orientation to the ply layer below it.”
The term “qualified” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “qualified” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “allowable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “allowable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite bolt”. Because the term “ceramic matrix composite bolt” has been used extensively in terms of a model, it is not definitively clear that the element is distinct from that recited previously. For purposes of this examination and to be explicitly clear, Examiner has interpreted the element to read “manufacturing a physical ceramic matrix composite bolt”.
Claims 2 and 4 recite “the second diameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this element, as the introduction of “a second diameter” was omitted from the claims as part of the amendment.
Claim 5 recites “determining that a structure of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt eventually fails ending the ith cycle directly,”. This limitation appears to be a run-on limitation that does not clearly describe the claimed invention and does not follow proper grammatical structure. Furthermore, the usage of the term “eventually” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, nor does the specification provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because the requirements for evaluating eventual failure are not described in such a way that one could reasonably qualify or quantify the conditions which lead to the eventual failure.
The dependent claims 2-6 incorporate the deficiencies of their respective parent claim(s) and are therefore rejected likewise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
wherein the second thickness is equal to n multiplied by h, where n represents a number of the plurality of ply layers, and h represents the first thickness, The claim limitation contains the mathematical relationship of equivalency. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
wherein the first height is equal to the second thickness; The claim limitation contains the mathematical relationship of equivalency. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
step 3, deformation and failure calculating: calculating failure load of the ceramic matrix composite bolt model; The claim limitation contains a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. The calculation of the failure load can be performed by the human mind using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Additionally, the claim recites the calculation be done on a ceramic matrix composite bolt model, which is a component in a computer environment, thereby indicating that the calculation is performed in a computer environment. Performing a mental process in a computer environment is still considered a mental process. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and determining a failure mode, wherein step 3 comprises: The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the deformation of the model to draw a conclusion on the failure mode. This evaluation can be performed in the human mind and therefore this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
after the displacement load is applied, obtaining unit stress of each of the units through static force calculation; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing static force calculations to obtain a stress value. This is a mathematical calculation and therefore the claim recites a mathematical concept. Furthermore, this task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid and therefore the claim additionally recites a mental process.
step 4, determining whether the ceramic matrix composite bolt model is qualified by comparing the failure load with an predetermined allowable press for a target working condition; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a failure load value with respect to a predetermined allowable press value to determine if a bolt model is qualified. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the evaluation of two values against each other is the recitation of a mathematical relationship and therefore the claim also recites a mathematical concept.
in responding to a determination that the ceramic matrix composite bolt model is not qualified, This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a value to determine if the model is qualified. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
step 1, preform modeling: step 1.1 setting a ply layer thickness; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
simplifying a ply layer of a needled ceramic matrix composite as a rectangular plate with a first length, a first width, and a first thickness; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
stacking a plurality of ply layer in a direction perpendicular to the ply layer to form a first ply layer model with the first length, the first width, and a second thickness, - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and wherein each of the plurality of ply layers in the first ply layer model comprises a unidirectional fiber layer and a short-cut fiber felt layer; This limitation has been identified as the Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
step 1.2 setting a first diameter of needled fiber bundles, and setting a first distance between any two adjacent needle fiber bundles; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
building a plurality of cylinder models equally spaced at the first distance and each having the first diameter, and a first height, so as to serve as a needled fiber bundle model, – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
step 1.3 performing a first Boolean subtraction operation on the first ply layer model and the needled fiber bundle model; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
subtracting the needled fiber bundle model from the first ply layer model to form a second ply layer model with holes, wherein the second ply layer model is configured for simulating a model formed after the first ply layer model is penetrated by needled fibers; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and enabling the second ply layer model with holes and the needled fiber bundle model to form a preform model of a ceramic matrix composite;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
step 2, structure modeling: step 2.1 building a CAD solid model of a needled ceramic matrix composite bolt according to macroscopic size parameters of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
building a cubic model with the first length, the first width, and the first height; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and performing a second Boolean subtraction operation on the cubic model and the CAD solid model of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt to generate a cubic model with a bolt cavity;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
step 2.2 performing a third Boolean subtraction operation on the preform model and the cubic model with the bolt cavity - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and subtracting the cubic model with the bolt cavity from the preform model to form a ceramic matrix composite bolt model, wherein the ceramic matrix composite bolt model comprises mesoscopic parameters and macroscopic parameters of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt, wherein the mesoscopic parameters comprise the first thickness, the number of the plurality of ply layers, the first diameter of the needled fiber bundles and the first distance of any two adjacent needled fiber bundles, wherein the macroscopic parameters comprise macroscopic size parameters of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
step 3.1 setting a binding contact or a Boolean bonding operation among the unidirectional fiber layer, the short-cut fiber felt layer, and the needled fiber bundles - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
setting frictional contact between an external screw thread of the ceramic matrix composite bolt model and an internal screw thread of a nut; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
step 3.2 dividing the ceramic matrix composite bolt model into finite units; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
assigning initial material parameters to the unidirectional fiber layer, the short-cut fiber felt layer, and the needled fiber bundles respectively- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
applying constraints and displacement load; - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
adjusting one or more of the macroscopic size parameters and the mesoscopic parameters and repeating the preform modeling, the structure modeling and deformation and failure calculating until an adjusted ceramic matrix composite bolt model is qualified to obtain final mesoscopic parameters and final macroscopic parameters; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
manufacturing a ceramic matrix composite bolt based on the final mesoscopic parameters and the final macroscopic parameters. - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The courts have ruled that merely reciting the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as in the case of the limitations identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have also ruled that generally linking the use of a judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With the additional elements viewed individually and in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore requires further evaluation under step 2B to determine if such limitations are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception.
adjusting one or more of the macroscopic size parameters and the mesoscopic parameters and repeating the preform modeling, the structure modeling and deformation and failure calculating until an adjusted ceramic matrix composite bolt model is qualified to obtain final mesoscopic parameters and final macroscopic parameters; - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation , this limitation includes receiving data over a network and performing repetitive calculations. Both of these activities have been recognized by the courts as well understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a merely generic manner.
As stated previously, the remaining additional limitations in Step 2A Prong 2 were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify as significantly more. Similarly, the courts have found that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception. Likewise, the courts have determined that adding activity to a judicial exception that is well understood, routine and conventional does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2:
Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated.
Claim 2 additionally recites the limitations as judicial exceptions:
measuring a third thickness of the unidirectional fiber layer, a fourth thickness of the short-cut fiber felt layer, the second diameter of the needled fiber bundles, and the second distance between any two adjacent needled fiber bundles; which can reasonably be read to entail observing different dimensions of an XCT picture of a needled ceramic matrix composite bolt. This task can be performed within the human mind and therefore this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
distance between any two adjacent needled fiber bundles;
and measuring the macroscopic parameters of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt, wherein the macroscopic parameters comprise a major diameter, a minor diameter, a second length, a screw pitch, and a bolt head diameter; which can reasonably be read to entail observing macroscopic parameters of an XCT picture of a needled ceramic matrix composite bolt. This task can be performed within the human mind and therefore this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
wherein the first length is equal to the second length, the first diameter is equal to the second diameter and the first distance is equal to the second distance. which is the recitation of the mathematical relationship of equivalency. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation as an additional element:
taking an X-ray transmission computed tomography (XCT) picture of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt; This limitation has been identified as the Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering.
The courts have ruled that adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
When read in light of the specification, there are no constraints as to how the XCT image is received and therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that in taking an XCT image, the image would subsequently be received over a network by a computer for further analysis. The courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner. As such, the well-understood, routine and conventional activity does not amount to more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3:
Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of dependent claim 2 and independent claim 1 is further incorporated.
Claim 3 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Claim 3 additionally recites the limitations as additional elements:
building a first block model with the first length, the first width, and a height equal to the third thickness of the unidirectional fiber layer to serve as a single one unidirectional fiber layer; This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
building a second block model with the first length, the first width, and a height equal to the fourth thickness of the short-cut fiber felt layer to serve as a single one short-cut fiber felt layer;This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and building the preform model with the first height according to an alternate sequence of one unidirectional fiber layer and one short-cut fiber felt layer. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The courts have ruled that merely reciting the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as in the case of the limitations identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4:
Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of dependent claim 2 and independent claim 1 is further incorporated.
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation as an additional element:
according to the second diameter measured and the second distance measured, building the cylinder models each having the second diameter and the first height at equal intervals in a direction perpendicular to the unidirectional fiber layer to serve as the needled fiber bundles. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The courts have ruled that merely reciting the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as in the case of the limitations identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5:
Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated.
Claim 5 additionally recites the limitations as judicial exceptions:
step 3.3 extracting constraint node reaction forces after the unit stress of each of the units is obtained by the static force calculation; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the unit stress of each of the units to quantify the constraint node reaction forces. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, performing a static force calculation is the recitation of a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
comparing a constraint node reaction force extracted in an ith cycle with a constraint node reaction force extracted in a (i-1)th cycle; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating two constraint node reaction forces against each other. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, comparing two numeric values between each other is the recitation of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
in a case of meeting one of situations: ∆P_i=|P_i |-|P_(i-1) |<0 and |∆P_i |≥k|∆P_(i-1) | , where k is a real number greater than 0, i represents a serial number of cycles, P_i represents the constraint node reaction force extracted in an ith cycle, P_(i-1) represents the constraint node reaction force extracted in an (i-1)th cycle, and a nonlinear solution in the static force calculation being no longer converged, determining that a structure of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt eventually fails ending the
i
th cycle directly, thereby determining the constraint node reaction force extracted in the
i
th cycle to be the failure load; and which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating constraint node reaction forces and the solution of the static force calculation to conclude that a structure of the ceramic matrix composite bolt will fail. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Additionally, this limitation includes the recitation of the mathematical relationships of “less than” and “greater than or equal to” and recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
determining a failure mode of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt according to a distribution of units marked as damaged; which can reasonably be read to entail observing the distribution of the discretized damaged units across the ceramic matrix composite bolt model and evaluating the distribution pattern to draw a conclusion on the failure mode. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
in the case that both the situations are not met, determining whether the unit stress of each of the units satisfies a reduction condition and a failure condition, when the unit stress of one of the units satisfies the reduction condition, reducing an elastic modulus of the one of the units in a corresponding one direction; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the unit stress with respect to reduction and failure conditions in order to inform the next step in the analysis. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
when the unit stress of the one of the units satisfies the failure condition, marking the one of the units as a damaged unit, and reducing the elastic modulus of the one of the units in the corresponding one direction; which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the unit stress with respect to the failure conditions in order to inform the next step in the analysis. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
and increasing the displacement load, adding one to a numerical value of the cycle number, and returning to the step of obtaining the unit stress of each of the units through the static force calculation, such that a next cycle is performed. which includes the recitation of “adding” as a mathematical calculation, and obtaining the unit stress through static force calculation as a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6:
Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of dependent claim 5 and independent claim 1 is further incorporated.
Claim 6 additionally recites the limitations as additional elements:
serving the external screw thread of the needled ceramic matrix composite bolt as a contact surface; This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and serving the internal screw thread of the nut as a target surface, wherein a contact type is standard, and a friction coefficient is 0.4. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The courts have ruled that merely reciting the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as in the case of the limitations identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2).
The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception (Step 2B).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are objected to as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112 but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or render obvious the particular mechanism by which the ceramic matrix composite bolt model is formed. The prior art of record does not fairly disclose or suggest the building of a solid model of a needled ceramic matrix composite bolt according to macroscopic parameters and subsequently performing Boolean subtraction operations on the preform model and the cubic model with the bolt cavity so as to derive a ceramic matrix composi