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 November 27, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16, and 17 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 27, 2025, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the additional elements of Claim 1 reciting “a virtual grid in a three-dimensional finite element mesh including a crack tip of a structure or material,” integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements result in an improvement in a stress intensity factor evaluation system. Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible because the additional elements are linked to a particular technological environment.
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"). Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, “generating a virtual grid by using three-dimensional eight-node elements” constitutes a mental process that can be performed with aid of pen and paper. This is further exemplified by figures 11(a) and 11(b) of Applicant’s drawings, filed August 27, 2025, which illustrate said three-dimensional elements drawn in a 2D representation, wherein the figures may be drawn by a human using pen and paper. The Examiner also notes that the claims do not exclude simple grids and finite element meshes which may be practicably performed by a human with aid of pen and paper, and the specification does not define a specific method for generating the virtual grid. Furthermore, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, generating a virtual grid may also constitute the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims are linked to a particular technological environment, the Examiner agrees. However, in order for an additional element to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply the recited judicial exceptions “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment,” see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, the “three-dimensional finite element mesh including a crack tip of a structure or material” merely generally links the recited abstract ideas to a particular technological environment.
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 5-11, 16, and 17 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim does not describe the variables V, S, S+, or S- in equation 8 of the instant claims. The claim is thus unclear as to how the J-integral value is calculated. Furthermore, the claim is unclear as to whether the domains V, S, or S++S- are “a domain for the domain integral” that is the generated virtual grid.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5-11, the claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
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 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 computer 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.
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” is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents 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 element “computer” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) is carried over and does 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
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