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 Arguments
The claim objections have been resolved via amendment and are withdrawn.
Applicant generally argues that the claims do not recite mathematical relationships or mental processes and recite significantly more than any judicial exception. These general allegations are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate a practical application, but the features set forth in this argument are all abstract mathemeatical relationships or features that fall within the scope of mental processes. This argument is not persuasive.
The 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained. New grounds of rejection are presented below to fully analyze the amended claim language.
Regarding the prior art rejections, applicant's amendments have introduced the following language:
"precomputing a pairwise correlation matrix based on relative motion between the first and second grids, the pairwise correlation matrix being independent of values of the first and second density arrays; computing the local measures of potential collisions using the pairwise correlation matrix and the first and second density arrays; and iteratively and simultaneously updating values of the first and second density arrays based on the local measures of potential collisions computed using the pairwise correlation matrix to generate the respective geometric representations free from interference between the first and the second ones of the two or more objects."
This language is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record (applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 are persuasive in regards to this, but in summary the references are completely silent on this functionality). The prior art of record, namely Mirzendehdel (Mirzendehdel, A. M., Behandish, M., & Nelaturi, S. (2020). Topology optimization with accessibility constraint for multi-axis machining. Computer-Aided Design, 122, 102825.) and Mirzendehdel '349 (US 20210073349 A1), represent the most pertinent prior art out of the prior art as a whole. In view of this, the claims distinguish over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 8 recites:
An apparatus for generating geometric representations to be manufactured for two or more objects interacting with each other, the apparatus comprising: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention, but intended use in the preamble does not receive patentable weight. The link to manufacturing is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of manufacturing as per MPEP 2106.05(h))
a memory; a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device and the memory configured to: (generic computer components being invoked merely as tools to carry out the claimed task, equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f))
receive a first characterization of motions of a first one of the two or more objects; (receiving this data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data itself could be obtained by a person performing the mental process of observing details of an intended manufacturing, or alternatively is represented as sequence of numerical data and falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
receive a second characterization of motions of a second one of the two or more objects associated with the first characterization of motions of the first one of the two or more objects; (receiving this data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data itself could be obtained by a person performing the mental process of observing details of an intended manufacturing, or alternatively is represented as sequence of numerical data and falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
receive a respective design domain for each of the first and the second ones of the two or more objects, the respective design domain comprising at least a dimensional constraint; and (receiving this data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data itself could be obtained by a person performing the mental process of observing details of an intended manufacturing, or alternatively is represented as sequence of numerical data and falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
perform, by a processing device and based on the first and the second characterizations of motions of the first and the second ones of the two or more objects and the respective design domain, topology optimizations for both the first and the second ones of the two or more objects to generate respective geometric representations that enable the first and the second characterizations of motions free from interference between the first and the second ones of the two or more objects, (a person can perform this mentally by evaluating and judging the system they have observed, alternatively this represents a mathematical algorithm performed on numerical data that falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
wherein the topology optimizations include sensitivity fields augmented by gradients and local measures of potential collisions, (these are mathematical algorithms that fall within the scope of mathematical relationships, and a person could also perform these mentally by evaluating the equations with aid of pencil and paper. Note that no lower bound is presented on the complexity of the system, so extremely simplistic calculations for a minimal system would be within the scope of the claims and a person could reasonably perform the associated calculations of such a system.)
wherein to perform the topology optimizations, the processing device and the memory are configured to: (this is just further specification mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
discretize the respective design domain into first and second grids; (mathematical operations done according to a mathematical algorithm. A person could also perform this mentally by evaluating the domains with aid of pencil and paper.)
represent the respective geometric representations using first and second density arrays corresponding to the first and second grids; (performing mathematical calculations to populate a numerical data structure in an array with numerical values in relation to mathematical cartesian coordinates)
precompute a pairwise correlation matrix based on relative motion between the first and second grids, the pairwise correlation matrix being independent of values of the first and second density arrays; (performing further mathematical calculations according to a mathematical algorithm)
compute the local measures of potential collisions using the pairwise correlation matrix and the first and second density arrays; and , (these are mathematical algorithms that fall within the scope of mathematical relationships, and a person could also perform these mentally by evaluating the equations with aid of pencil and paper. Note that no lower bound is presented on the complexity of the system, so extremely simplistic calculations for a minimal system would be within the scope of the claims and a person could reasonably perform the associated calculations of such a system.)
iteratively and simultaneously update values of the first and second density arrays based on the local measures of potential collisions computed using the pairwise correlation matrix to generate the respective geometric representations free from interference between the first and the second ones of the two or more objects. , (these are mathematical algorithms that fall within the scope of mathematical relationships, and a person could also perform these mentally by evaluating the equations with aid of pencil and paper. Note that no lower bound is presented on the complexity of the system, so extremely simplistic calculations for a minimal system would be within the scope of the claims and a person could reasonably perform the associated calculations of such a system.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor/memory), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of manufacturing, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (receiving data). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that data is received is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 8, and are rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite only further details that fall within the scope of mathematical algorithms, and these mathematical algorithms can be classified as mathematical relationships, and also mental processes as they could be performed mentally with aid of pencil and paper as discussed above for claim 8. They remain ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see the above discussion of the claim amendments in the response to arguments section. Note that presently all pending claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 – this section at present merely indicates allowability over the prior art (i.e. that the claims distinguish over the prior art).
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 BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights