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
The amendment filed July 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16, and 17 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 18, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 16, 2026, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 1) The claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology, 2) The claimed invention is directed to an improvement, and 3) The claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Regarding 1) that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology, Applicant specifically argues that the present invention focuses on software and programs that perform stress intensity factor evaluations.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to solving differential equations using finite element analysis. The computer programs in the claims and instant specification are merely used as a tool to perform the required mathematical calculations,
Regarding 2), that the claimed invention is directed to an improvement, Applicant specifically argues that the claims are directed to specific improvements in the field of stress intensity factor evaluation. Applicant argues that off-the-shelf commercial software is inadequate to accurately calculate stress intensity factors, and that the claims provide an improvement to calculate said factors.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the additional elements result in an improvement in technology, the Examiner notes that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement […] 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.” see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP § 2106.04(I), Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92 , 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"). While the claims recite stress analysis as being performed by a computer program, the alleged improvement to a functioning of a computer is provided solely by improving the abstract idea of stress analysis itself. Furthermore, as alluded to by the instant specification and Applicant’s argument, commercial/ off-the-shelf software represents a generic computer or computer program used as a tool to perform the underlying mathematical concept of solving differential equations using a finite element mesh. That is, any improvement in computational speed is provided only by changing the computation itself, rather than an actual change to the structure of the computer.
Regarding 3), that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, Applicant specifically argues that the instant claims are analogous to McRo in that the present invention details a novel method to evaluate stress intensity that improves an existing technological process by allowing automation of further tasks. Applicant argues that the claims present an ordered combination of specific operations that are used to create a desired result.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner refers to MPEP § 2106.05(a); “[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome […] In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).” In determining whether the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, the additional elements of a computer and computer program are not considered to be a particular machine; “a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine,” see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). Again, the instant specification states that the disclosed method may be added to commercial software, indicating that the claimed computer and computer program are merely used as tools to perform the recited abstract ideas, i.e., “the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more,” see MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II).
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 1 is directed to a machine.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes, as the claims cover the performance of the limitations of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A stress intensity factor evaluation system using a virtual grid, the stress intensity factor evaluation system comprising:
a computer implementing a program, wherein the program is configured to:
generate a virtual grid by using three-dimensional eight-node elements, from a target region for stress recovery in a three-dimensional finite element mesh including a crack tip of a structure or material, the virtual grid being centered at a location of the crack tip;
calculate a nodal displacement of the generated virtual grid through interpolation using shape functions of four-node tetrahedral elements used for finite element analysis and a nodal location of the virtual grid;
calculate a stress field of the virtual grid; and
calculate a J-integral value and a stress intensity factor around the crack tip to predict crack growth for the structure or material.
wherein the program is further configured to calculate a value of the stress intensity factor using the nodal displacement and the stress field, and a domain integral method,
wherein a domain for the domain integral is the generated virtual grid and is integrated as a J-integral value J according to Equation 8 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
51
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where σij is stress, ti is traction acting on a crack surface, each of uj,k and ui,k is a displacement, W is strain energy, δki is a Kronecker delta, and each of qk,i and qk is a continuous function, which has a value of 1 at the crack tip and a value of 0 at a boundary of an integral domain, where V denotes a J-integral domain, where S+ denotes a top crack surface, S- denotes a bottom crack surface, and S denotes the combination of S+ and S-.
The limitations generate a virtual grid, calculate a nodal displacement of the generated virtual grid, calculate a stress field of the virtual grid, calculate a J-integral value and a stress intensity factor, and calculate a value of the stress intensity factor are abstract ideas because they are directed to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. Equation 8 further specifies the mathematical formulas and equations.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A stress intensity factor evaluation system using a virtual grid (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
by using three-dimensional eight-node elements, from a target region for stress recovery in a three-dimensional finite element mesh including a crack tip of a structure or material, the virtual grid being centered at a location of the crack tip (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
to predict crack growth for the structure or material (general field of use and/or technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Computer” and “program” are high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements “computer” and “program” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) are carried over and do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 1, wherein: a shape and size of the virtual grid are determined according to a shape and size of finite elements; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 1, wherein when the location the virtual grid node is located inside a finite element, the nodal displacement of the virtual grid is calculated by Equation 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
38
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where up denotes the nodal displacement of the virtual grid, u1, u2, and u3 denote nodal displacements of the finite element nodes, and ξ1, ξ2, and ξ3 denote shape functions of the finite element; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 210604(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 5, wherein in a triangular finite element, the shape functions are defined by Equation 3 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
45
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
97
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where x1,x2, and x3 and y1,Y2, and y3 are coordinates of a triangular element, A is an area of the triangular element, and x and y are locations inside the triangle for which shape function values are to be calculated; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 210604(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to calculate the nodal displacement of the virtual grid through a least squares method based on coordinate and displacement values of a standard finite element and the location of the virtual grid node; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II) or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 7, wherein an equation for the least squares method for displacement calculation of the virtual grid node is defined as Equation 4 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
31
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where P is shape functions based on the coordinates of the finite element, b is a nodal displacement value of the finite element, and the nodal displacement value of the virtual grid is calculated by calculating constants qX and qY, minimizing r, through the least squares method and then multiplying P and q; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 210604(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II) or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 8, wherein a variable m constituting the shape function matrix P is calculated by Equation 5 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
33
180
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where x and y denote locations inside the triangle for which shape function values are to be calculated, xw and yw denote coordinates of triangle nodes, and hw denotes a size of the triangle; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 210604(a)(2)(I).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to calculate stress values at Gauss points of the virtual grid by using the shape functions and the nodal displacement of the virtual grid; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II) or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites The stress intensity factor evaluation system of claim 7, wherein the computer is further configured to calculate the stress field by taking a first derivative of the displacement field on the virtual grid; this limitation is considered to be directed to additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 210604(a)(2)(I). This limitation is directed to the mathematical concept of derivatives.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In light of Choi et al. (Choi, Habeun, and Kyoungsoo Park. 2019. “Removing Mesh Bias in Mixed‐mode Cohesive Fracture Simulation with Stress Recovery and Domain Integral.” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 120 (9): 1047–70. doi:10.1002/nme.6170.), hereinafter Choi; Guo et al. (Guo, Yajun, and John A. Nairn. "Calculation of J-integral and stress intensity factors using the material point method." Computer Modeling in Engineering and Sciences 6 (2004): 295-308.), hereinafter Guo; and Nagai et al. (Nagai, Masaki, Toru Ikeda, and Noriyuki Miyazaki. "Stress intensity factor analyses of three-dimensional interface cracks using tetrahedral finite elements." Computational Mechanics 51 (2013): 603-615.), hereinafter Nagai, instant Claim 1 would not have been anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Choi teaches a method for stress recovery from a 2D finite element mesh using a 2D grid. However, Choi does not specifically teach recovering stress from a 3D finite element mesh using a 3D grid, nor does Choi teach the J-integral defined as equation (8) from the instant claims.
Guo teaches a method using first and second mode stress intensity factors. However, Guo also does not teach the J-integral defined as equation (8) in the instant claims.
Nagai teaches a method for stress intensity analysis using tetrahedral finite elements. Equation (19) and (21) of Nagai disclose a J-integral using a volume integral similar to the first integral of equation (8) in the instant claims; however, equations (19) and (21) of Nagai do not include the same surface integral used to calculate the J-integral in the instant claims.
In summary, the aforementioned prior art fails to teach at least the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations: wherein a domain for the domain […] is integrated as a J-integral value J according to Equation 8 below:
PNG
media_image7.png
121
736
media_image7.png
Greyscale
While the prior art teaches individual aspects of the claimed system, a combination of the teachings of the closest prior art listed above would not completely teach the limitations of instant Claim 1. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Choi, Guo, and Nagai to reach the claimed invention, and the Applicant’s claimed invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent Claims 3 and 5-11 would be allowable for depending from independent Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claims would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights