DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 2 are currently presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant states that the 112 rejection of the claims was addressed by the amended limitations. However, when looking at the amended limitations, none of the variables in question have been defined. By not defining the indefinite variables in the amended claims, the 112 rejection has not be addressed and is therefore Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: A person could not reasonably perform the claimed features mentally.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the claimed equations are simple enough that they could be performed using pencil and paper. As such, the claims contain a mental process. Even if the claims could not be performed mentally, they still recite the abstract idea of a Mathematical Concept, that has not been argued by Applicant.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim is integrated into a practical application, citing the reading of measurement data, inputting the measurement data into an AI model as shown in formula 9, and transmitting the calculated remaining fatigue life to a serving terminal, and with the serving terminal, monitoring and early warning of a weld joint fatigue failure.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as each of the cited limitations are noted in the MPEP as not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. The reading of measurement data is a mental process. The use of the AI model is the use of a computer as a tool MPEP 2106.05(f). While the use of equation 9 is a mathematical concept in the form of an equation and calculation. The transmitting of the fatigue data is also the use of a computer as a tool MPEP 2106.05(f). The monitoring of the data for an early warning system is insignificant extra solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). This is akin to “testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction,” which has been identified by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant’s Argument: The claim improves the field of the digital twin framework.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as the improvement is not set forth by the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following variables are undefined, which renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear:
PNG
media_image1.png
82
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
claim 1
PNG
media_image2.png
41
34
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image3.png
39
30
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image4.png
40
38
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image5.png
57
56
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image6.png
79
93
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image7.png
51
46
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 1
PNG
media_image8.png
39
27
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 2
PNG
media_image9.png
46
32
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 2
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Regarding claims 1-2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-2 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recite the abstract idea of simulating a thermal modeling using finite element, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " introducing a displacement constraint condition solving formula as shown in formula (1) to obtain a global displacement solution of the three-dimensional model; extracting a nodal displacement on a unit from a global displacement according to numbering information of the units and the nodes; converting the nodal displacement into a local coordinate system of the unit, and then multiplying by a stiffness matrix of the unit to obtain all nodal forces and nodal moments of the unit;
PNG
media_image10.png
138
593
media_image10.png
Greyscale
”covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation and performing a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental process including an evaluation through a series of calculations. Additionally, the limitation of “(2) converting the nodal forces into membrane stresses and converting the nodal moments into bending stresses based on information about the nodal forces and the nodal moments of the three-dimensional model of the weld joint; summing the membrane stresses and the bending stresses to obtain structural stress data, as shown in formula (2);
PNG
media_image11.png
181
592
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
349
597
media_image12.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation and performing a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental process including an evaluation through a series of calculations. Additionally, the limitation of “(3) in order to make structural stress at each of the nodes change continuously, obtaining structural stresses at the weld joint in several working conditions, and then training the obtained structural stresses data by an artificial intelligence algorithm, thus obtaining a prediction model of the membrane stresses and the bending stresses of the weld joint; constructing an artificial intelligence model of the membrane stresses and the bending stresses of the weld joint based on the trained data and an algorithm flow:
PNG
media_image13.png
188
583
media_image13.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation and performing a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental process including an evaluation through a series of calculations. That is, but for the recitation of “an artificial intelligence algorithm”, there is nothing that precludes operation of the claim in the human mind. This follows for each subsequent recitation. Also, as the artificial intelligence algorithm is noted as equation 9 in the claims and in Applicants arguments dated 10/20/2025, the artificial intelligence algorithm is a mathematical concept. Additionally, the limitation of “on-line stage: … formula (9) to obtain changes of the membrane stress, the bending stress and the structural stress with the sensing data in a single cycle; then, counting the obtained data of the membrane stress, the bending stress and the structural stress based on a rainflow counting method, and the steps are as follows: …
PNG
media_image14.png
202
597
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(3) finding a maximum value and a minimum value of the changing range in the structural stress cycle and dividing corresponding intervals equidistantly therebetween according to a given series, and counting cycles thereof according to the intervals; obtaining changing ranges of the membrane stress and the bending stress in the k th cycle counted based on the rainflow counting
PNG
media_image15.png
308
588
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
635
651
media_image16.png
Greyscale
” covers mathematical concepts in the form of setting up an equation and performing a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as a mental process including an evaluation through a series of calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claim 2 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional elements of “an artificial intelligence algorithm” and “serving terminal” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “(1) establishing a three-dimensional model of a weld joint and dividing meshes to obtain stiffness matrix information of units and nodes;”, “inputting the measurement data into a trained artificial intelligence model as shown in formula (9)”, “(1) in order to shorten data counting time, first connecting the read data from end to end to become fully closed data requiring only one rainflow count;”, “transmitting the calculated remaining fatigue life to a serving terminal,” in claim 1 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “first, reading measurement data of the sensor,” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The additional limitation of “with the serving terminal, monitoring and early warning of a weld joint fatigue failure.” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claim 2 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional elements of “an artificial intelligence algorithm” and “serving terminal” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “(1) establishing a three-dimensional model of a weld joint and dividing meshes to obtain stiffness matrix information of units and nodes;”, “inputting the measurement data into a trained artificial intelligence model as shown in formula (9)”, “(1) in order to shorten data counting time, first connecting the read data from end to end to become fully closed data requiring only one rainflow count;”, “transmitting the calculated remaining fatigue life to a serving terminal,” in claim 1 are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The additional limitation of “first, reading measurement data of the sensor,” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, which has been identified as extra solution activity. The additional limitation of “with the serving terminal, monitoring and early warning of a weld joint fatigue failure.” in claim 1, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to the claims. See allowability section of Non-Final Office Action dated 9/8/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. “Rainflow Counting Based Block Cycle Development for Fatigue Analysis using Nonlinear Stress Approach”: Also teaches the use of a Rainflow counting method to identify fatigue in welds.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188