DETAILED ACTION
A summary of this action:
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 have been presented for examination.
This action is Final.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
485
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each and every step falls under mathematical concept and/or mental process (i.e. a human using pen and paper as a physical aid). Further, examiner consulted the specification whether the disclosed invention improves technology and to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. However, after carefully examined the claimed solution to a problem recited in applicant argument, the claims don’t reflect to cover a particular solution to a problem. Rather, the focus of the claims here is the improved mathematical algorithm to generate a final geometry from the topology optimized geometry.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image2.png
572
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 103(a) has been withdrawn.
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 1-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a process and is a statutory category invention. Claims 12 and 16-19 are directed to a system, which is a system and is a statutory category invention. Claims 20-23 are directed to a non-transitory machine readable medium, which is a manufacturer and is a statutory category invention. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 16-23 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 12, and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer processor”, “computing system,” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitations similarly recite accessing geometries associated with a topology optimization process, the geometries comprising: an original geometry that represents a design space upon which the topology optimization process applies to, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the instructions from the processor that may cause the computing system to access geometries associated with a topology optimization process, as described in [0073] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 1, 12, and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer processor”, “computing system,” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitations similarly recite a topology optimized geometry that represents an output of the topology optimization process performed for the original geometry, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the accessed geometries that may include an original geometry representing a design space, as described in [0073] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 1, 12, and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer processor”, “computing system,” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitations similarly recite generating a final geometry from the topology optimized geometry by: conforming the topology optimized geometry to the original geometry at portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the original geometry corresponding to fixed regions of the original geometry, as described in [0020] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Claims 1, 12, and 20, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer processor”, “computing system,” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Accordingly, the limitations similarly recite smoothing the topology optimized geometry at portions that correspond to non-fixed regions of the original geometry, which is an abstract idea and covers mental processes of assessing the topology of optimized geometries, as described in [0015] of the specification, because the claims are derived from Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper or in the alternative Mathematical Concepts using mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-11, 16-19, and 21-23 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims. See analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation “processor” as in independent claims 20, “computing system” as in independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 21-23, and “non-transitory machine-readable medium,” as in independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21-23, and “system” as in independent claim 12 and dependent claims 16-19, “geometry access engine” as in independent claim 12, and “geometry processing engine” as in independent claim 12 and dependent claims 16-19, this limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation replacing the portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry with the original geometry at the fixed regions, similarly recited in dependent claims 2 and 16, 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).
Dependent claims 2-11, 16-19, and 21-23 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not amount to significantly more. The judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation “processor” as in independent claims 20, “computing system” as in independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 21-23, and “non-transitory machine-readable medium,” as in independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21-23, and “system” as in independent claim 12 and dependent claims 16-19, “geometry access engine” as in independent claim 12, and “geometry processing engine” as in independent claim 12 and dependent claims 16-19, this limitation does not amount to significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Alternatively, this additional element merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation replacing the portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry with the original geometry at the fixed regions, similarly recited in dependent claims 2 and 16, 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) and does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11, 16-19, and 21-23 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in to determine whether they amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claims 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 3 and 17 similarly recite “wherein the fixed regions of the original geometry in the final geometry are represented as computer-aided design (CAD) geometry and the smoothed portions of the topology optimized geometry are represented as facets.,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 18 similarly recite “representing the topology optimized geometry at a finer granularity than a discretization granularity used for the topology optimization; and smoothing the topology optimized geometry at the finer granularity,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 19, and 21 similarly recite “an overall geometry that sets boundary limits of the design space upon which the topology optimization process applies to; and a fixed geometry that comprises a portion of the design space that is designated not to change,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5, 19, and 21 similarly recite “wherein conforming the topology optimized geometry to the original geometry at portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry comprises representing the overall geometry, the fixed geometry, and the topology optimized geometry at a finer granularity than a discretization granularity used for the topology optimization ,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 5, 19, and 21 similarly recite “wherein conforming the topology optimized geometry to the original geometry at portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry comprises enriching, at the finer granularity, the topology optimized geometry to include portions of the fixed geometry that are missing in the topology optimized geometry due to removal by the topology optimization process,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 5, 19, and 21 similarly recite “wherein conforming the topology optimized geometry to the original geometry at portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry comprises restricting, at the finer granularity, the topology optimized geometry to exclude portions of the topology optimized geometry that extend beyond the overall geometry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 6 and 22 similarly recite extracting a mesh representation of the final geometry from the level-set geometry representation,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 22 similarly recite “performing a Boolean operation between the mesh representation of the final geometry and the original geometry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claims 7 and 23 similarly recites “in addition to smoothing the topology optimized geometry, smoothing the mesh representation of the final geometry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes,” or in the alternative a Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claim 8 recites “extracting a triangle mesh from the final geometry,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes,” or in the alternative a Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claim 8 recites “converting the triangle mesh into subdivision surfaces,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 recites “decimating the triangle mesh using edge collapse operations, converting the decimated triangle mesh into a quadrilateral mesh, and initializing a control cage from the quadrilateral mesh,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes,” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Dependent claim 10 recites “converting the triangle mesh into a quadrilateral mesh; coarsening the quadrilateral mesh; and initializing a control cage from the coarsened quadrilateral mesh ,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 recites “adapting parameters of the control cage by performing surface fitting to fit a triangular surface of the subdivision surfaces, adjusting weights of cage edges to create creases in the control cage, or a combination of both,” which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to a “Mental Processes,” or in the alternative a “Mathematical Concept.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 are allowable over prior arts.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
BOWMAN (US 9697326 B1) discloses a graph representation of a geometric design may be refined for analysis and to produce a refined or optimal design which may be used to manufacture mechanical or structural parts, creating or accessing a representation of a geometric entity, setting or accessing a set of constraints for the geometric entity, and setting or accessing a set of objectives for the geometric entity, a mesh representation of the geometric entity is also created or accessed, a graph representation of the mesh for the geometric entity is created and the graph representation of the geometric entity is refined using an optimization algorithm according to the constraints and objectives for the geometric entity, the graph representation and the mesh may be coupled such that the graph and mesh are both refined during the process (Col. 2 lines 7-22); The optimizer 140 (which implements an optimization algorithm): An optimization algorithm works directly with a tree-graph that represents a finite element discretization of the design space. The optimizer may employ the solver and invoke the solver 130 iteratively. This algorithm not only optimizes the physical properties of the individual elements, but it can also refine or collapse vertices in the mesh. Because the mesh refinement that this design space allows can produce smooth, discrete designs, true constraints can be applied to the design instead of pseudo constraints applied to non-smooth and non-discrete designs produced by optimization methods that are generally used with prior known systems (Col. 3 lines 52-64).
Cuilliere et al (J. C. Cuilliere, V. Francois, J. M. Drouet, “Towards the Integration of Topology Optimization into the CAD Process” pgs. 120-140, 2013) discloses this paper presents a contribution to the automation and integration of topology optimization methods (TOM) with CAD, in the context of the design of statically loaded mechanical structures and parts. Starting from an initial CAD model with relevant engineering data, the goal is automatically generating an optimized CAD model with respect to engineering objectives and constrains. Though many optimization methods are now available, their complete and efficient integration into the design process faces several problems. After introducing the basic steps involved in the whole process and identifying the challenges inherent to this integration, this paper presents our contribution in addressing these challenges. The paper is focused on the specification of design and non-design sub-domains, on automatic mesh generation problems induced and on the adaptation of TO concepts in the context of 3D unstructured meshes. TO itself is adapted from a SIMP scheme, which is an arbitrary choice as any other optimization method could also have been used. Sets of results are presented to illustrate the potential and difficulties inherent to integrating TOM into the product design process with CAD (Abstract).
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “conforming the topology optimized geometry to the original geometry at portions of the topology optimized geometry that correspond to fixed regions of the original geometry; and smoothing the topology optimized geometry at portions that correspond to non-fixed regions of the original geometry” as recited in claims 1, 12, and 20.
Conclusion
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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights