Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 17-23 are currently presented for Examination.
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 on 11/11/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 21 are amended and claims 22 and 23 are newly added. Following Applicants arguments and amendments made on 11/11/2025, the 103 rejection of the claims is withdrawn since the previous claim 6 is incorporated in independent claims. However, the 101 rejection is still maintained. See office action for detail.
Applicant 101 arguments
Specifically, Applicant has clarified at the various acts are performed by a computer. Further, Applicant has amended the claims to clarify that the generated component mesh is a three-dimensional (3D) component mesh and is used to simulate a 3D component and/or an additive manufacturing build-up process of the 3D component. Applicant respectfully submits that such a generated 3D component mesh or a simulation of a 3D component or additive manufacturing build-up process of the component is not capable of being performed in the mind as a mental act but is specifically tied to a computer and only capable of being implemented by a computer. Additionally, the simulation of the 3D component or additive manufacturing build-up process of the 3D component is in itself a practical application, e.g., in the field of computer-aided design. Therefore, in view of these clarifying amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1. As such, Applicant respectfully requests the Office withdraw its § 101 rejections of the claims.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), a claim recites a mental process if it describes a type of activity that can be performed in the human mind, even if a computer performs it faster or more accurately. The core of the claim—assigning numerical indices (0, 1, 2) based on spatial rules, sorting those indices in "ascending order," and permutating characters—is a fundamental logical exercise. While performing this on millions of nodes requires a computer, the nature of the step is a series of logical and mathematical manipulations. Limitation to "simulate the 3D component and/or an additive manufacturing build-up process" is a simulation of an abstract model and which is an informational output. Simulating a 3D component is not the same as improving a 3D component. The claim does not state that the simulation results are used to physically control a 3D printer or that they solve a specific technical manufacturing problem. The claim describes what is being done (simulating) rather than how the specific mathematical sorting/permutation method solves a technical problem inherent in conventional CAD software. Without a recited technical improvement, the simulation remains an abstract modeling of a physical system. Applicant’s clarification that the acts are "performed by a computer" simply confirms the use of a generic computer to execute the mathematical algorithm. The mathematical sorting and permutation are performed using generic computer functions (sorting, list creation, and calculation) without any specific improvement to the computer's underlying architecture or hardware. The claim fails to describe how this specific indexing/sorting method solves a technical problem in the computer-aided design (CAD) field. The combination of sorting numerical indices with a 3D simulation does not produce a "new and useful" result that is more than the sum of its parts. It is simply the automation of a mathematical method on a general-purpose computer. The claim does not provide "significantly more" because it relies on conventional computer functions to execute a mathematical algorithm. The claim simply automates a mathematical data-sorting method on a general-purpose computer to produce a visual or numerical simulation. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts and mental processes) and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
5. Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-4, 7-15 and 18-23 are directed method or process, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
Claims: 17 is directed non-transitory computer-readable medium, which falls on the one of the statutory category i.e., manufacture.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 and 17 recites:
providing a 3D three-dimensional initial component mesh composed of initial mesh elements of uniform shape which comprise initial mesh nodes and initial mesh edges extending between the initial mesh nodes (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The act of "providing a three-dimensional initial component mesh" simply refers to conceptualizing or visualizing it in the mind, or sketching it out as a general idea on paper, it is considered a mental process and thus an abstract idea. The mesh itself, as a concept of connected nodes and edges forming a shape, is a fundamental building block of design and computation. It is simply using computer as a tool to perform abstract idea. Also, it is considered as the mathematical concepts since it is the mathematical representation of geometry)
slicing the 3D initial component mesh by at least one cutting plane such that initial mesh elements are divided into at least two resulting mesh elements, wherein at the intersection points of the at least one cutting plane with edges of initial mesh elements resulting mesh nodes are defined; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, it is considered as the mathematical concepts since slicing is the geometric operation)
determining a position of each initial mesh element with respect to each cutting plane of the at least one cutting plane and thus which initial mesh element is divided into resulting mesh elements and which initial mesh element is not divided; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
wherein the determining comprises calculating, for each initial mesh element, a cutting code cc or cutting codes cc's that indicate(s) the position(s) of the initial mesh element with respect to the cutting plane(s), Also, it is considered as the mathematical concepts under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) “performing mathematical calculations)
wherein the calculating comprises: creating an unsorted list nus={nusj,, nus,2, nus,3,..., nus,i} of i characters nus,1,nus,2, nus,3, ..., nusi, such as numbers or letters, which represent the initial mesh nodes of the initial mesh element; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, it falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “organizing information through lists”)
assigning a cutting index mus,1, mus,2, mus,3, ..., mus,i to each initial mesh node, wherein an initial mesh node which is below the particular cutting plane is assigned the cutting index 0, an initial mesh node which is in the particular cutting plane is assigned the cutting index 1 and an initial mesh node which is above the particular cutting plane is assigned the cutting index 2; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
creating an unsorted list mus={musj,,mus,2, mus,3, ..., musi} of the i cutting indices mus,1,mus,2, mus,3,...,mus,i; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, it falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “organizing information through lists”)
sorting the cutting indices mus,1, mus,2, mus,3, ..., musi of the list mus={mus,i,mus,2, mus,3, ...,mus,i} in ascending order to create a sorted list ms={ms,1, ms,2, ms,3, ...,ms,i} and permutating the characters nus,1, nus,2, nus,3, ..., nus,i of the list nus={nusi, nus,2, nus,3, ...,nus,i} to create a sorted list ns={nsi, ns,2, ns,3, ..., ns,i} which is sorted in correspondence with the sorted list ms={msi, ms,2, ms,3, ..., ms,i}; (This process relies heavily on the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculation.)and
calculating the cutting code cc using the sorted cutting indices ms,1, ms,2, ms,3, ,msi. (This process relies heavily on the combination of mental process and mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculation. The detailed steps of creating lists, assigning indices (0, 1, 2), sorting, and calculating "cutting codes" (cc) are purely mathematical operations and data manipulation. Processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper—such as sorting a list in ascending order—are frequently categorized as mental processes, even if performed on a computer.)
determining the shape of each resulting mesh element; (It is simply the output of the mathematical step. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of generating, by the computer, the 3D component mesh using the shape of each determined mesh element; and simulating, by the computer, the 3D component and/or an additive manufacturing build-up process of the 3D component using the 3D component mesh is merely apply the abstract calculations using a generic computer environment as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and are directed to the use of calculated data for simulation without reciting a technological improvement or a transformation of a physical device. Claim 17 further recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one computer, cause the at least one computer are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f); Thus, the method of generating a 3D component mesh of a 3D component is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, claim 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of generating, by the computer, the 3D component mesh using the shape of each determined mesh element; and simulating, by the computer, the 3D component and/or an additive manufacturing build-up process of the 3D component using the 3D component mesh is merely apply the abstract calculations using a generic computer environment as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and are directed to the use of calculated data for simulation without reciting a technological improvement or a transformation of a physical device. Claim 17 further recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one computer, cause the at least one computer are amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. (MPEP 2106.05(f); Thus, the method of generating a 3D component mesh of a 3D component is no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, claim 1 and 17 are directed to abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites wherein the slicing of the 3D initial component mesh comprises slicing the 3D initial component mesh by several cutting planes which run parallel to each other to generate the 3D component mesh composed of several mesh layers superimposed upon each other. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, it is considered as the mathematical concepts since slicing is the geometric operation. Defining a set of parallel planes and calculating their intersections with a 3D volume is a fundamental geometric/mathematical operation. Organizing data into a "layered" structure is a logical method of arranging information. The concept of "superimposition" in a digital model is a mathematical relationship between coordinates. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the slicing of the 3D initial component mesh further comprises selecting a distance between the cutting planes such that each initial mesh element is cut a maximum of three times. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the providing of the 3D three-dimensional initial component comprises providing a tetrahedron mesh composed of tetrahedron-shaped mesh elements each having four initial mesh nodes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. 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, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); A tetrahedron is a fundamental geometric primitive defined by mathematical coordinates. Reciting the specific shape (four nodes) is viewed as defining a mathematical model. Providing a specific type of mesh (tetrahedron vs. hexahedron) is seen as organizing data into a specific format for calculation. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further recites
PNG
media_image1.png
134
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This process relies heavily on mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculation. So, it falls under the mathematical concepts of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 further recites wherein, for each initial mesh element, it is determined whether the respective initial mesh element is cut by one or more cutting planes and divided into resulting mesh elements or not cut based on the calculated cutting codes cc's, wherein: when the cutting code cc is 0 or 2222, the respective cutting plane does not cut the respective initial mesh element, when the cutting code cc is 1 or 1222, one initial mesh node of the respective initial mesh element belongs to the respective cutting plane, when the cutting code cc is 11 or 1122, one edge of the respective initial mesh element belongs to the respective cutting plane, when the cutting code cc is 111 or 1112, one face of the respective initial mesh element belongs to the respective cutting plane, when the cutting code cc is 2, 12, 22, 112, 122 or 222, the respective initial mesh element is cut by the respective cutting plane, and when the cutting code cc is 1111, the respective initial mesh element is degenerated. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this is a set of mathematical relationships or "if-then" logical rules used to categorize numerical data into geometric forms. The use of specific numerical identifiers to represent spatial orientations is a mathematical algorithm. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 further recites when it is determined that a respective initial mesh element is cut by only one cutting plane and thus divided into two resulting mesh elements, the shape of the two resulting mesh elements is determined by the cutting code cc associated with the respective initial mesh element and the cutting plane which cuts the respective initial mesh element , wherein: when the cutting code cc is 2 or 222, this indicates that the cutting plane divides the initial mesh element in a triangular prism and a tetrahedron, when the cutting code cc is 12 or 122, this indicates that the cutting plane divides the initial mesh element in a quadrangular pyramid and a tetrahedron, when the cutting code cc is 22, this indicates that the cutting plane divides the initial mesh element in two triangular prisms, and when the cutting code cc is 112, this indicates that the cutting plane divides the initial mesh element in two tetrahedrons. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this is a set of mathematical relationships or "if-then" logical rules used to categorize numerical data into geometric forms. The use of specific numerical identifiers to represent spatial orientations is a mathematical algorithm. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 further recites when it is determined that a respective initial mesh element is cut by at least two cutting planes, a first cutting code ccl associated with the respective initial mesh element and a first cutting plane and a second cutting code cc2 associated with the respective initial mesh element and a second cutting plane the first and second cutting planes being adjacent to each other and cut the respective initial mesh element, are considered to determine the shape of one or two resulting mesh elements delimited by the first and second cutting planes between the first and second cutting planes within the respective initial mesh element, wherein: when the first cutting code ccl is 2, 12 or 112 and the second cutting code cc2 is 0 or 1, or when the first cutting code ccl is greater than 1111 and the second cutting code cc2 is 0, 1, 11, 12, 111, 112, 122 or 222, this indicates that a tetrahedron is delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 2, 12 or 112 and the second cutting code cc2 is 2, or when the first cutting code ccl is 22 and the second cutting code cc2 is 0, 1 or 11, or when the first cutting code ccl is 222 and the second cutting code cc2 is 0, 1, 11 or 111, or when the first cutting code ccl is 222 and the second cutting code cc2 is 112, 122 or 222, or when the first cutting code ccl is greater than 1111 and the second cutting code cc2 is 2 or 22, this indicates that a triangular prism is delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 122 and the second cutting code cc2 is 0, 1 or 11, this indicates that a quadrangular pyramid is delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 22 and the second cutting code cc2 is 22, this indicates that a hexahedron is delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 22 or 122 and the second cutting code cc2 is 12, or when the first cutting code ccl is 122 and the second cutting code cc2 is 22, this indicates that a degenerated hexahedron is delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 22 and the second cutting code cc2 is 2, or when the first cutting code ccl is 222 and the second cutting code cc2 is 22, this indicates that a degenerated hexahedron and a tetrahedron are delimited by the first and second cutting planes, when the first cutting code ccl is 122 and the second cutting code cc2 is 2, or when the first cutting code ccl is 222 and the second cutting code cc2 is 12, this indicates that two triangular prisms, one of which is degenerated, are delimited by the first and second cutting planes, and when the first cutting code ccl is 222 and the second cutting code cc2 is 2, this indicates that two triangular prisms are delimited by the first and second cutting planes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, this is a set of mathematical relationships or "if-then" logical rules used to categorize numerical data into geometric forms. The use of specific numerical identifiers to represent spatial orientations is a mathematical algorithm. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 further wherein cases in which two resulting mesh elements are delimited by the first and second cutting planes within the respective initial mesh element are due to the fact that, when a trace of the first and second cutting planes in a tetrahedron face of the respective initial mesh element defines a pentagon, the pentagon is divided into a quadrangle and a triangle. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the subdivision of a pentagon into a triangle and a quadrangle is a geometric/mathematical relationship. Under the MPEP 2106, describing the transformation of one polygon into others is technically "reciting" a mathematical concept. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 further recites projecting at least one initial mesh node, whose distance to a respective cutting plane is less than a predetermined threshold value, into the cutting plane. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 further recites saving all resulting mesh elements which replace the initial mesh elements on a storage medium. It is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing data), and falls under the insignificant extra solution activity and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iii) Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 further recites wherein the at least one cutting plane is a boundary plane of a boundary of the component, and wherein resulting mesh elements outside the boundary are excluded from the component mesh. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 further recites wherein the simulating comprises thermally simulating, mechanically simulating, and/or thermos-mechanically simulating, with the 3D component mesh, the 3D component and/or the additive manufacturing build-up process, of the 3D component. Simulating" a physical process (thermo-mechanical build-up) is a mathematical model of that process. Without reciting how the simulation results are used to physically control hardware or solve a non-mathematical technical problem, it remains an abstract model. The claim recites that the acts are "performed by a computer," but does not recite any specific, non-generic computer architecture. Performing a mathematical algorithm on a general-purpose computer to create a data representation (a 3D mesh) is not a "technological improvement" to the computer itself. Claim focuses on the abstract concept of simulation without tying it to a specific, tangible improvement in the additive manufacturing process or the resulting component. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 further recites wherein the-several cutting planes are uniformly spaced from each other. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 further recites wherein the slicing of the 3D initial component mesh further comprises selecting a distance between the cutting planes such that each initial mesh element is cut a maximum of two times. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 further recites wherein all initial mesh nodes are projected. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 further recites wherein the predetermined threshold is less than one tenth of a smallest resulting mesh element thickness near a respective projected initial mesh node. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers mental process including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper therefore falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22 further recites building the 3D component up layer by layer in the additive manufacturing build- up process. Adding a "well-understood, routine, and conventional" physical step to the end of a mathematical process does not make the math eligible. "Building layer by layer" is the definition of additive manufacturing, it is viewed as an insignificant post-solution activity. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 23 further recites using the 3D component mesh to get information on thermal issues during the additive manufacturing build-up process and/or capturing a preview on distortions configured to arise due to a complex thermo-mechanical process during the additive manufacturing build-up process. The limitations "using the 3D component mesh to get information" and "capturing a preview" are acts of data gathering and analysis. Identifying "thermal issues" or "distortions" through the observation of data is a logical determination that can be performed in the human mind. Even though a computer is used to process the complex thermo-mechanical math, the nature of the limitation is the mental act of identifying a problem based on a model. The claim merely provides "information" and a "preview." It does not recite any technical action taken based on that information. The simulation that only "alerts" a user to a problem or "previews" a result without automatically adjusting a physical process or improving the computer's internal functioning is not a practical application. "Capturing a preview" is a form of data visualization. Displaying the results of an abstract mathematical algorithm (the mesh slicing) is considered an insignificant post-solution activity that does not transform the algorithm into a patent-eligible invention. The claim does not include any additional element; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
14. Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 17-23 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140160127 A1 Sundaram.
Discussing a system for facilitating mesh generation corresponding to a volumetric, prismatic object, generalized polyhedrons representing at least a portion of a layer of the volumetric object are transformed into a set of convex polyhedrons based on, at least in part, the prismatic properties of the volumetric object.
US 6804635 B1 Dhondt.
Discussing a method for generating a three-dimensional mesh for a structure to be subjected to three-dimensional structural finite element analysis entails the steps of providing a triangulation of the surface of said structure, providing a master mesh encompassing said structure, processing, by performing at least one of the steps of cutting and remeshing, at least those elements of the master mesh that are intersected by said triangulation such that the elements internal to said structure correspond to elements of said three-dimensional mesh each having a first predetermined topological property, and discarding elements of the master mesh external to said structure. The three-dimensional meshes are generated in a fully or at least partially automated fashion.
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186