DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 20, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 9, 2026, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the claimed method requires inputting information into a structural analysis model and using the structural analysis model to simulate wind loading. Applicant argues that the structural analysis model is a particular machine/article required to perform the recited mathematical calculations. Applicant also argues that the claimed method integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide a technological improvement.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the structural analysis model is a particular machine/article, the Examiner notes that the specification is devoid of any description of a structural analysis model. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the structural analysis model is interpreted as a generic computer used to perform the mathematical calculations recited in the instant claims, and the model recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Furthermore, inputting information into the model is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is further well-understood, routine conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d) and (g).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application by providing an improvement in technology, the Examiner notes that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement,” see MPEP § 2106.05(a) referenced by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In the instant claims, the technological improvement is provided solely by the equations 2, 3, and 4, which are expressly mathematical formulae. While the improvement can be provided by one or more additional element(s) in combination with the judicial exception(s), the additional elements in the claims merely recite generic computer components as instructions to apply the abstract idea(s) on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or a general field of use and technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)-(h).
The instant claims are therefore considered to be directed to abstract ideas; an updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, the amendments to the claims reciting a structural analysis model introduces new matter. The originally filed specification and claims are devoid of any mention of a structural analysis model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claim 1 is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A method of calculating a time history wind load considering correlation and designing a building structure, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) setting any one among an along-wind load, an across-wind load, and a torsional-wind load as a first wind load, and setting any one among the remaining loads as a second wind load;
(b) generating a first time history wind load for the first wind load using an arbitrary first random phase angle; and
(c) generating a second time history wind load for the second wind load using a phase angle, which is the same as the first random phase angle of the first wind load, and a phase angle delay value.
(d) inputting the calculated first time history wind load and the second time history wind load into a structural analysis model of a building structure;
(e) performing a non-linear time history structural analysis of the building structure using the structural analysis model to simulate non-linear structural responses including a P-Δ effect; and
(f) designing structural members of the building structure based on results of the non-linear time history structural analysis,
wherein the first time history wind load and the second time history wind load are calculated by the following [Equation 2] and [Equation 3], respectively […] wherein f denotes a frequency, Δ f denotes a frequency step, θAi denotes a random phase angle between 0 and 2π, S(f) denotes a power spectral density function with respect to frequency, k denotes a target maximum load ratio (or correlation factor of two time histories), cos-1(k/Ø) denotes a phase angle delay value, and Ø denotes a similarity factor of the power spectral density function and is calculated as follows
PNG
media_image1.png
65
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and σA and σB are standard deviations of time histories A(t) and B(t), respectively, and their squares are equal to the integral of power spectrum;
The bolded limitations are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes (i.e., mental observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions) and/or mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations). A user can perform the mental judgement of selecting an along-wind load, across-wind load, and torsional-wind load. A user may use pen and paper to perform the selection. Generating time histories is directed to the mathematical equations 1-3 in the instant specification. Performing a non-linear time history structural analysis is interpreted as performing the mathematical calculations set forth by equations 1-3. A user can perform the mental evaluation of designing structural members of the building structure. A user may use pen and paper to draw the design.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A method of calculating a time history wind load considering correlation and designing a building structure (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
inputting the calculated first time history wind load and the second time history wind load into a structural analysis model of a building structure (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Structural analysis model” is a high level recitations of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional element “structural analysis model” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) is carried over and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structure of the additional element in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activity of inputting the calculated first time history wind load and the second time history wind load is considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following 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 […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional limitations wherein a second time history wind load function adjusts coherence of a first time history wind load function and the second time history wind load function according to a frequency by combination of an arbitrary second random phase angle having a value independent from the first random phase angle and [Equation 4] are considered to recite further mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, further comprising, after step (c), the step of finally determining the first time history wind load and the second time history wind load using the random phase angle of step (b) when a difference between a maximum load ratio, which is calculated using the first time history wind load and the second time history wind load, and a target maximum load ratio is within an allowed error; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Generating a time history describes a mathematical formula, and a user can determine when a difference between a maximum load and target maximum load is within an allowed error.
and repeating steps (b) and (c) when the difference is out of the allowed error; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following 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 […] ii. Performing repetitive calculations.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method according to claim 5, further comprising, after the step of finally determining, the step of applying a gradual loading filter, which gradually increases and decreases magnitude of a response in an early part and a late part of time, to the first time history wind load and the second time history wind load, respectively; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method according to claim 6, wherein at the step of applying the gradual loading filter, the first time history wind load and the second time history wind load are distributed in a vertical direction by a vertical distribution shape function; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, in light of Skiba, Ye, and Zhang, the claim would not have been anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Skiba, the closest prior art, teaches a method for calculating the forces of wind on a structure over a time period. However, Skiba does not specifically disclose wherein the first time history wind load is calculated by equation 2 of instant Claim 1, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
65
280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or wherein the second time history wind load is calculated by equation 3 of instant Claim 1, below:
PNG
media_image3.png
30
385
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ye teaches the first time history wind load of equation 2 in instant Claim 2 as equation (1), below:
PNG
media_image4.png
76
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where Ak is defined below:
PNG
media_image5.png
47
326
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Substituting Ak into equation (1) of Ye yields the same equation 2 in instant Claim 2. However, Ye also does not teach equation 3 of instant Claim 1.
Zhang teaches a method for applying a coherence function to spectral density functions, and likewise does not teach equation 3 of instant Claim 1.
In summary, the aforementioned prior art fails to teach at least the following limitations, in combination with the remaining limitations: the second time history wind load [is] calculated by the following […] [Equation 3] […] wherein f denotes a frequency, Δf denotes a frequency step, θAi denotes a random phase angle between 0 and 2π, S(f) denotes a power spectral density function with respect to frequency, k denotes a target maximum load ratio (or correlation factor of two time histories), cos-1(k/Ø) denotes a phase angle delay value, and Ø denotes a similarity factor of the power spectral density function. The combination of the teachings of the closest prior art listed above would not completely teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5-7 would be allowable for depending from independent Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, in light of Skiba, Ye, and Zhang, the claim would not have been anticipated or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Skiba, the closest prior art, teaches a method for calculating the forces of wind on a structure over a time period. However, Skiba does not specifically disclose wherein the first time history wind load is calculated by equation 2 of instant Claim 3, which is the same as equation 2 in instant Claim 1, above. Furthermore, Skiba does not teach equation 4 of instant Claim 3, below:
PNG
media_image6.png
16
622
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ye teaches the first time history wind load of equation 2 in instant Claim 3 as equation (1), as explained above. However, Ye also does not appear to specifically teach equation 4.
Zhang teaches a method for applying a coherence function to spectral density functions, and likewise does not teach equation 4 of instant Claim 3.
In summary, the aforementioned prior art fails to teach at least the following limitations, in combination with the remaining limitations: the second time history wind load [is] calculated by […] [Equation 4] […] wherein f denotes a frequency, Δf denotes a frequency step, θAi denotes a random phase angle between 0 and 2π, S(f) denotes a power spectral density function with respect to frequency, k denotes a target maximum load ratio (or correlation factor of two time histories), cos-1(k/Ø) denotes a phase angle delay value, and Ø denotes a similarity factor of the power spectral density function [and] a() and b() are correlation functions having a value between 0 and 1 according to frequency, and satisfy [sqrt(a2+b2) = 1]. The combination of the teachings of the closest prior art listed above would not completely teach the limitations of Claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189