DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 01/16/2026 has been received and considered. Claim 1 is currently presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Office personnel are to give claims their "broadest reasonable interpretation" in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,550-551(CCPA 1969). See *also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322(Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow").... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
Claim 1 recites "and/or". The claim reciting "and/or" was interpreted as “or”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter description of “a non-transitory storage medium storing software instructions” and "a processor, wherein the processor, in performing the software instructions, is configured to" in the specification is non–existing. Examiner interprets these limitations as "[a]ny kind of… finite element(s) software" for examination purposes, because while the amended claimed invention reads “a non-transitory storage medium storing software instructions… a processor, wherein the processor, in performing the software instructions, is configured to", the specification reads (emphasis added):
"Any kind of method and/or finite elements software can be used for system matrices" (see page 5, last paragraph),
"These matrices belong to the engineering structure that was designed and it can be obtained using any kind of commercial finite elements software" (see page 6, 1st paragraph),
"This information can be obtained from any finite element software only once" (see page 8, 1st paragraph),
"The modal matrix and natural frequency information of the linear system is obtained only once by solving the eigenvalue problem of the related system or by using any kind of finite element software" (see page 11, 4th paragraph),
and "Obtaining the modal matrix and natural frequency information of the linear system once only… by using any kind of finite elements software" (see page 13, 2nd paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims, Step 1: a system (system = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
A modal superposition… defining a modal superposition method using a response dependent non-linear mode concept for a vibration analysis of non-linear engineering structures… after defining system matrices and non-linear elements of a physical system… and external driving forces of the non-linear engineering structure, wherein a steady vibration response is desired for the non-linear engineering structure, obtain an equation of motion as M.x(t)+C.x(t)+iH.x(t)+K.x(t)+fN(x(t),x(t),...)=f(t), after deciding upon a number of harmonics, writing out a system response and internal non-linear forces as periodic functions by using
PNG
media_image1.png
76
1028
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in order to apply the modal superposition method, substitute a displacement vector, a non-linear force vector, and an external excitation vector inside the equation of motion, wherein the displacement vector, the non-linear force vector, and the external excitation vector are written as a periodic function using the Fourier series, and the displacement vector with a response dependent non-linear mode (RDNM) matrix times a modal coefficient vector to obtain,
PNG
media_image2.png
127
1066
media_image2.png
Greyscale
forming a non-linear complex equation system in a modal domain for a non-linear system,
obtain for once only modal matrix and natural frequency information of a linear system, by solving an eigenvalue problem in an equation K.u = ω2M.u of the linear system or… and to calculate RDNMs included in the equations
PNG
media_image3.png
68
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
95
1614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
handle a real section of a non-linear matrix obtained using a Describing Function Method (DFM) of the non-linear system as a modification made in a stiffness matrix of the linear system and establish a new eigenvalue problem for the linear system, multiply each term in the new eigenvalue problem, from a left with a transpose of the modal matrix of the linear system and with the modal matrix from a right, as the modal matrix of the linear system is orthogonal with the system matrices of the linear system, obtain a new eigenvalue problem equation [Ω+ΦTΔ1reΦ].u =ω2I·u, comprising a diagonal matrix of a square of natural frequencies of the linear system, an identity matrix and the transpose of the modal matrix of the linear system times the real section of the non-linear matrix obtained by the DFM times the modal matrix, obtain modal information of a modified linear system by solving the new eigenvalue problem at each frequency point or at certain intervals, wherein the modal information is modal vectors and new eigenvalues, and calculate the RDNMs using ΦN=ΦΦ equation with a multiplication of the modal matrix of the linear system and the modal matrix obtained from a solution of the new eigenvalue problem, wherein eigenvalues corresponding to each RDNM are the new eigenvalues calculated in this step, obtain a non-linear equation system defined with equations
PNG
media_image5.png
39
1061
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[ΦT(Ωn-(hω)2I+iHd+ihωCd)Φ].qh+ΦNTfh (h=1,2,...,nh), and solve the modal coefficient vector as a single unknown in the non-linear equation system (mathematical concepts)
to determine forced vibration amplitudes of the non-linear engineering structure under operating conditions of the non-linear engineering structure… minimize a number of non-linear equations to be solved by selecting only a minimum number of RDNMs sufficient for a given harmonic content, thereby reducing solution computation time and improving numerical stability during the solution of the nonlinear equation system (mental concepts)
wherein M, C, H, and K respectively represent a mass, a viscous damping, a structural damping and a stiffness matrices of the system, wherein f and N denote force and nonlinear, respectively, h denotes harmonic, t is time, qo is a real valued bias amplitude vector of the physical system response in the modal domain, Hd is a structural damping matrix in the modal domain, Cd is a viscous damping matrix in the modal domain, fo is a bias amplitude vector of an external force, I is an identity matrix, wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
32
132
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and f(t) are internal non-linear forces and periodic external excitation force vectors, respectively, wherein x(t) represents the displacement vector of the system, dot represents a derivative with respect to time, i represents a unit imaginary number, wherein x0 and fN, 0, represent real valued bias amplitude vectors of the system response and the internal non-linear forces, respectively, and xh and fN, h, represent complex amplitude vectors of the system response and the internal non-linear forces for the nh represents harmonic, respectively, and nh represents a total number of harmonics taken into consideration in the expansion, and e is the Euler's number, and Im shows an imaginary part of the expressions, wherein qh is a response coordinate in the modal domain for the hth harmonic and ΦN is a response dependent non-linear mode, wherein Φ is a modal matrix of an original linear system and Φ is a modal matrix of modified the linear system, wherein u and ω are a mode vector and a natural frequency of the original linear system, respectively, and jis a diagonal matrix formed of a square of natural frequencies of the original linear system, and n and w represent respectively a mode vector and a natural frequency of a modified linear system, I is a diagonal unit matrix, and Δ1re obtained from the Describing Function Method, and wherein u is a mode shape vector of the modified system, qre and qim are a real part and an imaginary part of unknown modal coordinates (mathematical concepts)
Independent claim 1 is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations and mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1: “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations “Describing Function Method”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the Describing Function Method is a mathematical concept. The specification reads (see page 7, last paragraph):
"the Describing Function Method. This method shows that the non-linear internal forces matrix, can be written as a multiplication of a non-linear complex matrix and the response vector".
As to the limitations “Specification (see page 4, last paragraph). Determinations are mental in nature. These limitations, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, can be characterized as entailing a user analyzing deciding/determining (judgments, opinions), that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations “minimize a number of non-linear equations to be solved by selecting only a minimum number of RDNMs sufficient for a given harmonic content", under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “selecting” is a mental concept. Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about how the "minimum number of RDNMs sufficient for a given harmonic content" are selected. Selections are mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion). The specification merely reads "invention reduces the solution time, as the minimum number of non-linear equations needs to be solved" (see page 4, last paragraph).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical or mental concepts, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: As to the limitations medium storing software, processor, and "by using any kind of finite elements software", they are interpreted at best as drawn to a generic computer for performing mathematical computations.
As to the limitations “the physical system being a real non-linear engineering structure that is subject to friction, contact and/or bolted structures or that includes materials exhibiting non-elastic behaviors“, they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations medium storing software, processor, and "by using any kind of finite elements software" are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Examiner notes that both the specification is mute about "medium storing software" and "processor". See 112(a) Rejection above. The description of "by using any kind of finite elements software" in the specification amounts to "The modal matrix and natural frequency information of the linear system is obtained only once by solving the eigenvalue problem of the related system or by using any kind of finite element software" (see page 11, 4th paragraph).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration. Examiner notes that the specification is mute about "physical".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
A reason for the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in the Office Action dated 07/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, for example "support can be found in the Specification at least at, for example, paras. 0007, 0009, 0010 and 0022" (see page 7, last paragraph), but the specification lacks paragraph numbers. Examiner invites Applicant to use the Specification of record in the present Application and not any other publication. The MPEP reads "evaluating the specification… if the specification sets forth… described in the specification", see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) or 2106.05(a), and does not read the U.S. Pre–Grant publication or any other publication.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 8, 2nd paragraph to page 9, last paragraph):
‘… the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but merely involve an abstract idea. In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Office Action asserts that claim 1 is directed to mathematical concepts. See Office Action, p. 3, para. 2. The Applicant respectfully disagrees, as claim 1 is directed to a modal superposition system including a processor and a storage medium. While the Applicant acknowledges that a claim cannot preempt an abstract idea (see, e.g. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79-80, 86-87 (2012)), the claim does not constitute a preemption that monopolizes all applications of applying the claimed concepts. Rather, claim 1 is specifically limited and uniquely directed to a computing system that determines forced vibration amplitudes under operating conditions of a non-linear engineering structure that is subject to friction, contact and/or bolted structures or that includes materials exhibiting non-elastic behaviors. Thus, claim 1 is a method claim that merely involves an abstract idea, thereby rendering it patent eligible'
In context, the MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas [R-07.2022]… I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS. The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations… 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… Digitech… holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea”.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Examiner considers the claimed invention as directed to mathematical abstract ideas, because the claims themselves describe mathematical concepts. It is unclear how the claimed mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations in claim 1 are not performed via mathematical computations. A series of mathematical concepts is a mathematical algorithm.
Applicant further argues, (see page 10, 1st paragraph to page 14, last paragraph):
‘Step 2A, Second Prong:
… One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." MPEP §2106.04(d)(l) (emphasis added).
… The Specification identifies technical improvements to the field of computational structural dynamics: minimizing non-linear equations, reducing solution time, and mitigating stability issues. These are improvements to a technology under MPEP § 2106.05(±), not mere field-of-use statements. In particular, Claim 1 describes determining forced vibration amplitudes by minimizing a number of non-linear equations to be solved by selecting only a minimum number of RDNMs sufficient for a given harmonic content. See, e.g., Specification, para. 0007. Although effectively implemented with software running on processor, these features reduce the computation time to determine the forced vibration amplitudes, thereby improving the functioning of the computer as well as the relevant technology in the design of mechanical structures such as aerospace and automotive structures, defense industry platforms, steam and gas turbine engine structures. See, e.g., Specification, para. 0006-0007. As noted in Hybrid Audio, LLC, "a specific improvement to the way computers operate" "constitute[s] a non-abstract patent-eligible invention." Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Asus Comput. Int'!… In particular, in Hybrid Audio, LLC, the claims at issue provided an improvement of a "lower computational workload' and, while the claimed elements can be implemented on "general purpose computers," "this does not preclude patentability" because [lower computational workload] is "directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer." Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Asus Comput. Int'!, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115742 at *13, 17 (emphasis added). Here, as noted above, the minimization of a number of non-linear equations to be solved by selecting only a minimum number of RDNMs sufficient for a given harmonic content lowers the computational workload, as it reduces computation time of the processor, thereby constituting an improvement in the functioning of the computer as well as in the relevant technical field…
… the MPEP also explicitly states that a combination of additional elements can constitute an integration into a practical application if they are an improvement in a technical field. MPEP §2106.04(d)(I). Here, the combination of the claimed instructions, which effect a reduction of computation time, together with the processor is an improvement in the technical field, as discussed above. Even assuming, arguendo, that the processor itself was well-understood, routine, and conventional, with respect to the second prong of Step 2A as opposed to the "significantly more" analysis applied in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, as noted above, an additional element that represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application…
Step 2B:
While the Applicant respectfully asserts that Claim 1 is patent-eligible for at least the reasons discussed above, the analysis under Step 2B also illustrates that Claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test involves determining whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, i.e., provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). In particular, the MPEP notes that, to determine whether a Claim is patent-eligible under step 2B, "examiners should consider whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve' "any other technology or technical field."' MPEP §2106.0S(a). As discussed in detail above, Claim 1 provides a significant improvement the technical field, and the Claim is patentable eligible under Step 2B for the same reasons discussed above with respect to step 2A. The Applicant also respectfully submits that the claimed features are not routine or conventional. Claim 1 embodies a non-conventional ordered workflow in structural dynamics, including: deriving modal data of the underlying linear system; forming and solving a modified eigenvalue problem incorporating the real section of a DFM-derived nonlinear matrix; computing response-dependent nonlinear modes (RDNMs) from the original and modified modal matrices; forming and solving a nonlinear complex equation system in the modal domain with a single unknown modal coefficient vector; and reducing the number of nonlinear equations by selecting only the minimum number of RDNMs required to represent the harmonic content, thereby reducing runtime and mitigating numerical stability issues. The specification demonstrates that this ordered combination produces accurate forced-response solutions with fewer nonlinear equations, improved computational efficiency, and enhanced numerical stability, and that the resulting outputs are used in fatigue analysis and iterative design of real structures…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
'2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement… Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification… the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]… if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea… the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements… analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement'
OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.2 reads (underline emphasis added):
'But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice… (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs… (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the claims may provide improved math ('computational structural dynamics: minimizing non-linear equations, reducing solution time… forced vibration amplitudes by minimizing a number of non-linear equations… computational workload… accurate forced-response solutions with fewer nonlinear equations, improved computational efficiency, and enhanced numerical stability', as argued) – see MPEP § 2106.05(a) supra, but do not provide limitations such that an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology is realized. Improved math is a species of the genus math and is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology. An improved abstract idea is a species of the genus abstract idea. The claimed invention lacks “improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field". See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) supra.
It is well established that "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (supra). A faster abstract idea ('reduction of computation time… solution time', as argued) is still an abstract idea.
Furthermore, Applicant's generic statements about the claimed invention provided improvements lack any mappings to the Specification. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing/realizing any improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field (underline emphasis added). (See MPEP 2106.05(a) or 2106.04(d)(1) supra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)