DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 15.
Objection to claim 15 due to minor informalities is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-21 are maintained.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim features cannot be performed in the human mind, therefore independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite a judicial exception. After careful re-examination per the Office’s patent subject matter eligibility framework, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101 section below, the following limitations (in bold) recite Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes:
perform a finite element analysis of the FEM model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I));
identify a part identifier for a component part of the component parts of the structural product; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)))
determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier, and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)))
post-process, after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, the internal loads and deflections on the component part to determine an effect of the external load on the component part; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)))
Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation [ ] Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”.
Additionally, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[e]xamples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Previous rejections to claims 1-21 are maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Previous rejections to claims 1-21 are maintained.
Applicant argues Examiner’s referenced art (i.e. Lester in view of Abad) from Office Action dated 1/13/2026, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination disclose amended independent claim limitations. As shown in Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C §103 section below, Lester in View of Abad disclose all independent claim limitations. Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Applicant also argues [Pg.18] “[t]he Office Action maps certain pieces of previously - presented claim 1, but out of order to claim 1, as amended. For example, the Office Action mixes table 501 of Fig. 5 of ABAD with the calculated safety margines of Fig. 7 for allegedly disclosing "access results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model that indicate internal loads and deflections on the structural product at the respective nodal points when the structural product is under an external load, and the results are indexed by element identifier," as recited in previously present claim 1. The Office Action does not rely on LESTER for allegedly disclosing these features.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 section below, Lester [Col.10 Ln.45-49] discloses “access results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model that indicate internal loads and deflections on the structural product at the respective nodal points when the structural product is under an external load” and Abad [Col.10 Ln.20] discloses “results indexed by element identifier”. Specifically, Abad discloses “after the FEM models for the building blocks are produced, the model generator 103 can provide the FEM models as indicated by block 503 to the structure analyzer 104 for implementing the loads decomposition algorithm. In one example, the loads decomposition algorithm starts from block 601. At block 601, the structure analyzer can apply search algorithms to map element IDs with surface IDs, as indicated by block 601, to produce a table 602. At block 603, the structure analyzer can use the information in the table 602 to extract loads from the FEM models of the building blocks.” Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 (last limitation of each claim) recite “to facilitate design of the structural product”. This limitation is interpreted as intended purpose and is not given patentable weight.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to an apparatus, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of process.
Claims 15-21 are directed to a non-transitory CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes performed on a computer and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
perform a finite element analysis of the FEM model; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[e]xamples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”. This limitation, under BRI, is interpreted as performing mathematical calculation which can practically be performed in the human mind, with/without using a physical aid.)
identify a part identifier for a component part of the component parts of the structural product; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate component parts of the structural product and identify a part identifier for a component part, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.)
determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier, and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. Additionally, a person can reasonably evaluate component part analysis data and then extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part, with/without the aid of pen/paper.);
post-process, after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, the internal loads and deflections on the component part to determine an effect of the external load on the component part; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge) / calculate (mathematical concepts) an effect of the external load on the component parts after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: The Examiner interprets “post-process” to mean “additional analysis” per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0004])
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and
processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the
computer- readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least: (The additional feature(s) amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more [ ] Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”.)
produce a finite element method (FEM) model in which the structural product is represented by a mesh of elements with respective nodal points and nodal datasets, the elements indexed by element identifier, and the nodal datasets of the elements including part identifiers for each component part of the component parts to which the elements belong; (The additional feature(s) amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more [ ] Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”.)
access results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model that indicate internal loads and deflections on the structural product at the respective nodal points when the structural product is under an external load, and the results are indexed by element identifier; (The additional feature(s) amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). For instance, “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(g), use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.)
produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load on the component part; and cause display of the output to facilitate design of the structural product (The additional feature(s) amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution activity, data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load and to facilitate design of the structural product), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Also, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load and to facilitate design of the structural product), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), “The courts have recognized the following [applicable] computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 8):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 8, the claim recites the limitations of:
performing a finite element analysis of the FEM model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[e]xamples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”. This limitation, under BRI, is interpreted as performing mathematical calculation which can practically be performed in the human mind, with/without using a physical aid.);
identifying a part identifier for a component part of the component parts of the structural product; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate component parts of the structural product and identify a part identifier for a component part, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.)
determining element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier, and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
extracting, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. Additionally, a person can reasonably evaluate component part analysis data and then extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part, with/without the aid of pen/paper.);
post-processing, after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, the internal loads and deflections on the component part to determine an effect of the external load on the component part; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine (i.e. observe, evaluate, judge) / calculate (mathematical concepts) an effect of the external load on the component parts after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Note: The Examiner interprets “post-process” to mean “additional analysis” per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. P.0004])
Step 2A, Prong 2 (claim 8):
As per claim 8, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
producing a finite element method (FEM) model in which the structural product is represented by a mesh of elements with respective nodal points and nodal datasets, the elements indexed by element identifier, and the nodal datasets of the elements including part identifiers for each component part of the component parts to which the elements belong (The additional feature(s) amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more [ ] Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”.);
accessing results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model that indicate internal loads and deflections on the structural product at the respective nodal points when the structural product is under an external load, and the results are indexed by element identifier (The additional feature(s) amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). For instance, “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05(g), use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.);
producing an output that indicates the effect of the external load on the component part and causing display of the output to facilitate design of the structural product (The additional feature(s) amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution activity, data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load and to facilitate design of the structural product), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (claim 8):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Also, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e. produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load and to facilitate design of the structural product), does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv), “The courts have recognized the following [applicable] computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 15 further recites A computer-readable storage medium for designing a structural product that includes component parts, the computer-readable storage medium being non-transitory and having computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by processing circuitry, causes an apparatus to at least: The additional feature(s) amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea [ ] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more [ ] Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 further recite cause(ing) display of the output in which effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts to facilitate design of the structural product. The additional limitation elaborates on the display output, previously established as judicial exception from the claims in which they depend, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution activity, data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 further recite wherein the nodal datasets further include values of one or more properties of the structural product at the elements (The additional limitation elaborates on the FEM model nodal datasets, therefore further amounting to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))), and wherein the results of the finite element analysis indicate the internal loads and deflections determined based on at least some of the values (The additional limitation elaborates on the results of the finite element analysis, therefore further amounting to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) / (I))).
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 further recite identify(ing) a plurality of the part identifiers for a plurality of the component parts (The additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, “identifying”, as it is used here, is inherent to a mental process as it requires observation and judgement. Also, the limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (mental process) or other exception on a computer.), wherein the element identifiers are of the elements for the plurality of the component parts (The additional limitation is further elaborating on the data used to implement the abstract idea (mental process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))), and wherein the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are extracted (The additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), and the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are post-processed to determine the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts. (The additional limitation further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III), since a person can reasonably determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) and/or calculate (i.e. mathematical concepts) the effect of the external load on the plurality of component parts, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 further recite wherein the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts is determined according to analysis templates that are specific to types of the component parts (The additional limitation elaborates on the determination of the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts, thus further amounting to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III), determine(ing) a plurality of the analysis templates for the types of the plurality of the component parts from the plurality of the part identifiers (The additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). To “determine”, as it is used here, is inherent to a mental process as it requires evaluation and opinion.); and populate(ing) the plurality of analysis templates with the internal loads and deflections on the respective ones of the component parts (The additional limitation further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering - MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f))), and wherein the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are post-processed using the plurality of analysis templates populated with the internal loads and deflections. (The additional feature(s) elaborate further on post-processing, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III)).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 further recite produce(ing) an output that indicates effects of the external load on the plurality of the component parts; and cause(ing) display of the output in which the effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts. The additional limitations are further directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution activity, data outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 21 further recite determine(ing) a distribution of the internal loads and deflections; predict(ing) a failure rate of the component part under the external load from the distribution; and determine(ing) the structural integrity of the component part under the external load from the failure rate. The additional limitations further amount to Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)/(III)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al. US Patent No. 10295438 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Lester”) in view of Abad EP Doc No. 3667544 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Abad”).
Regarding claim 1, Lester discloses, a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least: (“The apparatus may include one or more of each of a number of components such as, for example, a processor 1302 (e.g., processor unit) connected to a memory 1304 (e.g., storage device) [ ] The processor 1302 is generally any piece of computer hardware that is capable of processing information such as, for example, data, computer programs” [Col.13 Ln.62-67]) produce a finite element method (FEM) model in which the structural product is represented by a mesh of elements with respective nodal points and nodal datasets (“the FEM system may be configured to receive or generate (i.e. produce) a finite element model of the aircraft including the aircraft wing and/or various components thereof. The finite element model may represent the aircraft by a mesh of finite elements [ ] in which each element may possess a set of distinguishing points called nodal points or nodes” [Col.6 Ln.58-68], “The nodal dataset for each set of nodal points may include values of a property or state of the aircraft at respective nodal points of the set of nodal points” [Col.7 Ln.17-19]),
, and the nodal datasets of the elements including of the component parts to which the elements belong (“The nodal dataset for each set of nodal points may include values of a property or state of the aircraft at respective nodal points of the set of nodal points [ ] This method may also be applicable to element-based datasets such as element forces, properties, and the like.” [Col.7 Ln.17-29]); perform a finite element analysis of the FEM model; (“The load applicator 306 may then be configured to apply an external load to the finite element model, and thereunder the analyzer 308 may be configured to extract internal load distributions of elements proximate the respective nodes.” [Col.10 Ln.45-49]) access results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model that indicate internal loads and deflections on the structural product at the respective nodal points when the structural product is under an external load (“The load applicator 306 may then be configured to apply an external load to the finite element model, and thereunder the analyzer 308 may be configured to extract (i.e. access results) internal load distributions of elements proximate the respective nodes.” [Col.10 Ln.45-49]. The Examiner interprets the internal load distributions to include “deflections” because “internal load distributions (load components) may be extracted. The load components may include, for example, a force and moment (i.e. deflection) of the elements” [Col.11 Ln.5-7]),
;
However, Lester fails to specifically disclose, the elements indexed by element identifier, part identifiers for each component part, the results indexed by element identifier, identify a part identifier for a component part of the component parts of the structural product, determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier, and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier, extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, post-process, after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, the internal loads and deflections on the component part to determine an effect of the external load on the component part, produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load on the component part, and cause display of the output to facilitate design of the structural product.
On the other hand, analogous art of Abad discloses, the elements indexed by element identifier (“At block 601, the structure analyzer can apply search algorithms to map element IDs with surface IDs, as indicated by block 601, to produce a table 602.” Abad [Col.10 Ln.25-29]) part identifiers for each component part (“The table 501 (see Fig.5 table below) may include part numbers, identified building blocks and extracted features of building blocks such as point labels, line labels and surface labels.” Abad [Col.10 Ln.1-3])
PNG
media_image1.png
322
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the results indexed by element identifier; (“after the FEM models for the building blocks are produced, the model generator 103 can provide the FEM models as indicated by block 503 to the structure analyzer 104 for implementing the loads decomposition algorithm. In one example, the loads decomposition algorithm starts from block 601. At block 601, the structure analyzer can apply search algorithms to map element IDs with surface IDs, as indicated by block 601, to produce a table 602. At block 603, the structure analyzer can use the information in the table 602 to extract loads from the FEM models of the building blocks.” Abad [Col.10 Ln.20]) identify a part identifier for a component part of the component parts of the structural product (“FIG. 5 illustrates generation of FEM models for the building blocks [ ] As shown, output of the geometry decomposition can be used to produce a table 501 (see above). The table 501 may include part numbers, identified building blocks and extracted features of building blocks such as point labels, line labels and surface labels” Abad [P.0041]) determine element identifiers of the elements for the component part identified by the part identifier, and whose nodal datasets include the part identifier; (“Using the information in table 501 (see below), the model generator 103 can apply mapping and element type rules to identify element type and/or element size for each building block, as shown in table 502 (see below).” Abad [Col.10 Ln.3-7])
PNG
media_image2.png
316
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
275
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
extract, using the element identifiers determined for the component part, the internal loads and deflections on the component part from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model (“At block 603, the structure analyzer can use the information in the table 602 to extract loads from the FEM models of the building blocks.” Abad [Col.10 Ln.28-31])
PNG
media_image4.png
291
533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
post-process, after extracting the internal loads and deflection from the results from the finite element analysis of the FEM model, the internal loads and deflections on the component part to determine an effect of the external load on the component part (“The structure analyzer can post process finite element analysis results to extract critical loads and produce the final margin of safety summary output based on classical analysis method. The structure analyzer can perform finite element analysis on the resulting FEM model to calculate internal loads of the first design.” Abad [Col.7 Ln.20-26]) produce an output that indicates the effect of the external load on the component part. (“The structure analyzer can produce the output based on loads extracted from the finite element analysis” Abad [Col.7 Ln.26-27]) and cause display of the output to facilitate design of the structural product. (“and displaying the output to facilitate design of the structural product” Abad [Col.2 Ln.33])
Lester and Abad are analogous art as they both relate to finite element and structural analysis of aircraft structural components. Both involve iterative or comparative processes to refine the design and ensure structural integrity, and both can display or update models based on analysis outcomes. Lester claims an apparatus, method, and computer-readable medium for designing a leading edge rib of an aircraft wing, focusing on extracting and analyzing stiffener geometries from a 3D model, performing structural analysis, iteratively adjusting stiffener properties for safety, and updating the 3D model accordingly. And Abad claims an apparatus and method for designing a structural product by comparing a CAD model and a FEM model, morphing or decomposing meshes as needed, performing finite element and classical analyses, and outputting results to facilitate design, with a focus on aircraft interior commodities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosed limitations of Abad with the modeling and analysis apparatus of Lester in order “to facilitate the design of structural products.” Abad [Col.1 Ln.14].
Regarding claim 3, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Lester further discloses, wherein the nodal datasets further include values of one or more properties of the structural product at the elements, (“The nodal dataset for each set of nodal points may include values of a property or state of the aircraft at respective nodal points of the set of nodal points” [Col.7 Ln.17-19]) and wherein the results of the finite element analysis indicate the internal loads and deflections determined based on at least some of the values. (“the FEM system 300 being configured to determine the structural integrity of the leading edge rib includes the analyzer 308 being configured to determine a margin of safety of the leading edge rib based on the internal load distributions and geometric or inertial properties of the plurality of stiffeners.” [Col.11 Ln.13-18])
Regarding claim 4, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Lester further discloses, and wherein the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are extracted, (“The node identifier 304 may be configured to identify respective nodes and elements of the finite element model [ ] The load applicator 306 may then be configured to apply an external load to the finite element model, and thereunder the analyzer 308 may be configured to extract internal load distributions of elements proximate the respective nodes.” Lester [Col.10 Ln.37-49]. The Examiner interprets the internal load distributions to include “deflections” because “internal load distributions (load components) may be extracted. The load components may include, for example, a force and moment (i.e. deflection) of the elements” Lester [Col.11 Ln.5-7]. Examiner also interprets the finite element model to include a “plurality of the component parts” because “the FEM system may be configured to receive or generate a finite element model of the aircraft including the aircraft wing and/or various components thereof.” Lester [Col.6 Ln.58-61]) and the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are post-processed to determine the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts. (“In some implementations, six (6) components of the internal load distributions (load components) may be extracted. The load components may include, for example, a force and moment (i.e. deflection) of the elements [ ] and the predicted failure rate under the external load may be based on the six load components” Lester [Col.11 Ln.4-12]. Examiner interprets “elements” to include “component parts” because “The elements may be or include one or more disjointed (non-overlapping) components of a mathematical model in which each element may possess a set of distinguishing points called nodal points or nodes” Lester [Col.6 Ln.66])
Lester fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the apparatus to identify a plurality of the part identifiers for a plurality of the component parts, wherein the element identifiers are of the elements for the plurality of the component parts.
Abad further discloses, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the apparatus to identify a plurality of the part identifiers for a plurality of the component parts, wherein the element identifiers are of the elements for the plurality of the component parts (“FIG. 5 (see below) illustrates generation of FEM models for 55 the building blocks [ ] The table 501 may include part numbers, identified building blocks and extracted features of building blocks such as point labels, line labels and surface labels. Using the information in table 501, the model generator 103 can apply mapping and element type rules to identify element type and/or element size for each building block, as shown in table 502.” Abad [Col.10 Ln.1-7]),
PNG
media_image5.png
534
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosed limitations of Abad with the modeling and analysis apparatus of Lester in order “to facilitate the design of structural products.” Abad [Col.1 Ln.14].
Regarding claim 5, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 4, although Lester fails to specifically disclose wherein the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts is determined according to analysis templates that are specific to types of the component parts, determine a plurality of the analysis templates for the types of the plurality of the component parts from the plurality of the part identifiers; populate the plurality of analysis templates with the internal loads and deflections on the respective ones of the component parts, and wherein the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are post-processed using the plurality of analysis templates populated with the internal loads and deflections.
However, Abad further discloses wherein the effect of the external load on the plurality of the component parts is determined according to analysis templates that are specific to types of the component parts, (“At block 604, the structure analyzer can transfer all the loads and geometries of the FEM models to classical analysis templates. Each of the building blocks may have a corresponding classical analysis template. At block 605, the structure analyzer can perform classical analysis on each of the respective FEM models to verify the design of the corresponding components of the structural product.” Abad [P.0042]. Examiner interprets “building blocks” to include “types of the component parts” because “the standard building block library may include all categorized building blocks corresponding to components of one or more structural products.” Abad [P.0036]) determine a plurality of the analysis templates for the types of the plurality of the component parts from the plurality of the part identifiers; (“At block 601, the structure analyzer can apply search algorithms to map element IDs with surface IDs, as indicated by block 601, to produce a table 602. At block 603, the structure analyzer can use the information in the table 602 to extract loads from the FEM models of the building blocks. At block 604, the structure analyzer can transfer all the loads and geometries of the FEM models to classical analysis templates. Each of the building blocks may have a corresponding classical analysis template.” Abad [P0042]) and populate the plurality of analysis templates with the internal loads and deflections on the respective ones of the component parts, (“At block 604, the structure analyzer can transfer all the loads and geometries of the FEM models to classical analysis templates. Each of the building blocks may have a corresponding classical analysis template.” Abad [P.0042]) and wherein the internal loads and deflections on the plurality of the component parts are post-processed using the plurality of analysis templates populated with the internal loads and deflections. (“After the classical analysis results (i.e. post-processed), e.g., the safety margins, for all the building blocks are produced or calculated, the results can be mapped on the CAD model of the structural product. FIG. 7 illustrates mapping of classical analysis results onto a CAD model” Abad [P.0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosed limitations of Abad with the modeling and analysis apparatus of Lester in order “to facilitate the design of structural products.” Abad [Col.1 Ln.14].
Regarding claim 7, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Lester further discloses, wherein the processing circuitry configured to cause the apparatus to post-process the internal loads and deflections further comprises the processing circuitry configured to cause the apparatus to determine a structural integrity of the component part, (“one or more apparatuses may be provided that are configured to function as or otherwise implement the systems, subsystems, tools and respective elements shown and described herein. In examples involving more than one apparatus, the respective apparatuses may be connected to or otherwise in communication with one another in a number of different manners, such as directly or indirectly via a wired or wireless network or the like.” Lester [Col.13 Ln.47-54]) and determining the structural integrity includes at least: determine a distribution of the internal loads and deflections; (“The load applicator 306 may then be configured to apply an external load to the finite element model, and thereunder the analyzer 308 may be configured to extract internal load distributions of elements” Lester [Col.10 Ln.46-49]. The Examiner interprets the internal load distributions to include “deflections” because “internal load distributions (load components) may be extracted. The load components may include, for example, a force and moment (i.e. deflection) of the elements” Lester [Col.11 Ln.5-7]) predict a failure rate of the component part under the external load from the distribution; (“The analyzer may further predict the failure rate of the leading edge rib under the external load based on the internal load distributions of the elements” Lester [Col.10 Ln.50-52]) and determine the structural integrity of the component part under the external load from the failure rate. (“and from the failure rate, determining a structural integrity of the leading edge rib under the external load” Lester [Col.12 Ln.61-62])
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10, the method of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11, the method of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12, the method of claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14, the method of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester et al. US Patent No. 10295438 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Lester”) in view of Abad EP Doc No. 3667544 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Abad”), in further view of Westin et al. US Pub. No. 20200097624 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Westin”).
Regarding claim 2, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 1, although Lester and Abad fail to specifically disclose cause display of the output in which effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts to facilitate design of the structural product.
However, Westin discloses cause display of the output in which effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts to facilitate design of the structural product (“the FDTD analyzer can be configured to produce an output based on the corresponding prediction that indicates one or more levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners. The display device can be configured to display the output to facilitate design or manufacture of the structural product.” Westin [P.0047], “a GUI 503 or window of a GUI may allow a user to select which component parts of the structural product (e.g., “Upper Skin” 504)” Westin [P.0052])
PNG
media_image6.png
218
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Westin is analogous art as it relates to “designing and manufacturing a structural product, and in particular, to engineering analysis of a structural product using a finite-difference time-domain model (i.e. FEM model).” [0001]. Moreover, Westin teaches “example implementations can provide identifiers of the fasteners in the geometric model, the FDTD model, and the output of the FDTD analysis, all of which are traceable to structural definitions of the fasteners.” Westin [P.0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lester-Abad combination to include display/output of part selection, as taught by Westin, in order “to facilitate design or manufacture of the structural product.” Westin [Abstract].
Regarding claim 6, Lester in view of Abad disclose the apparatus of claim 4, but fail to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further at least:
produce an output that indicates effects of the external load on the plurality of the component parts; cause display of the output in which the effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts.
However, Westin discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further at least (“The computer-readable storage medium is non-transitory and has computer-readable program code stored therein that in response to execution by a processor, causes an apparatus to at least” Westin [P.0017]): produce an output that indicates effects of the external load on the plurality of the component parts; cause display of the output in which the effects are selectable by component part of the plurality of the component parts (“the FDTD analyzer can be configured to produce an output based on the corresponding prediction that indicates one or more levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners. The display device can be configured to display the output to facilitate design or manufacture of the structural product.” Westin [P.0047], “a GUI 503 or window of a GUI may allow a user to select which component parts of the structural product (e.g., “Upper Skin” 504)” Westin [P.0052])
Westin is analogous art as it relates to “designing and manufacturing a structural product, and in particular, to engineering analysis of a structural product using a finite-difference time-domain model (i.e. FEM model).” [0001]. Moreover, Westin teaches “example implementations can provide identifiers of the fasteners in the geometric model, the FDTD model, and the output of the FDTD analysis, all of which are traceable to structural definitions of the fasteners.” Westin [P.0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the Applicant's effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lester-Abad combination to include display/output of part selection, as taught by Westin, in order “to facilitate design or manufacture of the structural product.” Westin [Abstract].
Claim 9, the method of claim 8, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13, the method of claim 11, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20, the computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights