Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 11-18 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 11-18) in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim objections
Claim 11 is objected because of following reasons:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said computational fluid dynamics surface mesh" in step b. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be “said CFD surfaces mesh”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “assemble an AIC matrix” in sept h and "said AIC matrices" in step i. This creates singular/plural inconsistency. It should be “said AIC matrix”.
Claim 11 used mixed verb forms such as receiving, computing then calculate, compute, provide and assemble. It should be parallel.
Claim 14 recites “matrix of as an unsteady motion” which is a typo error. It should be “matrix as an unsteady motion”.
Claim 17 recites “comprisingsaid” which is typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11-18 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 term “midlevel”, “coarser” and “high-fidelity CFD solver” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “midlevel”, “coarser” and “high-fidelity CFD solver” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “foreseeing” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “foreseeing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 12-18 depend on claim 11 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 11, and thus, claims 12-18 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 11 as a result.
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 11-18 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: 11-18 is directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Step 1 Prong one
Claim 11 recites
b. computing midlevel panel grids by connecting coarser grid points from said computational fluid dynamics surface mesh; (Connecting grid points, drawing lines between them, or identifying intermediate points (midlevel) to refine a mesh can be visualized and performed by a human using pencil and graph paper (a "pen and paper" test).According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), a claim falls into this category if the steps can be "practically performed in the human mind" or "using pen and paper".)
c. computing mode shapes of said panel grids from said midlevel panel grids to create a midlevel panel model (MLPM); (Computing mode shapes involve formulas and equations to create a model (data structure) in view of specification. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations.)
d. calculate a modal assurance criterion based on said midlevel panel model; (The MAC calculation uses complex vectors, dot products, and normalized scalars. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations.)
e. compute a coarsening ratio criterion from said modal assurance criterion; (Computing a ratio" is a mathematical equation. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations.)
f. compute an amplitude excitation matrix responsive to said modal assurance criterion using a 3D master point excitation (MPE) preprocessor; (The computation of a MAC matrix, which involves normalized cross-multiplication of mode shape vectors, is a "mathematical calculation" or "formula". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states that calculating a value using mathematical methods is a judicial exception. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. “3D MPE preprocessor" is merely a computer performing known math, it is not "significantly more.)
g. provide said amplitude excitation matrix and said CFD meshes to a wrapper around a high-fidelity CFD solver; (Amplitude excitation matrices and CFD meshes are numerical representations of physical phenomena. "Providing" these matrices to a solver is a mathematical calculation or formula application, which is considered a mathematical concept. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. "Wrapper" is just a generic computer interface meant to take input and trigger a conventional solver, this is considered a "mere instruction" to use a computer to solve a mathematical problem)
h. assemble an aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrix responsive to output from said wrapper around said high-fidelity CFD solver; (The AIC matrix is a matrix of influence coefficients—a mathematical representation (transfer function) relating aerodynamic forces to structural deformations This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations.)
and i. compute generalized aerodynamic forces (GAF) responsive to said AIC matrices. (The calculation involves manipulating matrices (AIC) to produce a result (GAF) using specific formula that represents structural mode shapes.. This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim do not recite the additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element of receiving a CFD surface mesh and a CFD volume mesh comprising at least panels, panel grids, and panel grid points is merely receiving data and fall under insignificant extra solution activity as discussed on MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element of 3D master point excitation (MPE) preprocessor, high-fidelity CFD solver and wrapper are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, a method for generating a computational fluid dynamic (CFD)-based structurally independent aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrices in a computer modified by software is no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim do not recite the additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element of receiving a CFD surface mesh and a CFD volume mesh comprising at least panels, panel grids, and panel grid points is merely receiving data and fall under insignificant extra solution activity as discussed on MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine or conventional. ((See MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)(i))) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v.Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The additional element of 3D master point excitation (MPE) preprocessor, high-fidelity CFD solver and wrapper are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Thus, a method for generating a computational fluid dynamic (CFD)-based structurally independent aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrices in a computer modified by software is no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further recites foreseeing the accuracy of an unsteady aerodynamic solution generated from a MLPM before said AIC matrices are computed. Claim simply states "foreseeing accuracy" (a judgment or evaluation) and falls under mental process of abstract idea. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 13 further recites using bi-linear Lagrange shape functions to generate said excitation amplitude matrix. The computation of a MAC matrix, which involves normalized cross-multiplication of mode shape vectors, is a "mathematical calculation" or "formula". This falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. As MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines this to include mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 14 further recites a. treating each column of said excitation amplitude matrix of as an unsteady motion; and b. driving said high fidelity CFD solver to compute the linearized unsteady pressure coefficient distribution as one column of said AIC matrix using a Finite Difference (FD) method or a numerically Exact Linearized Viscous/Inviscid Unsteady Solver (ELVUS) technique. The claim recites mathematical relationships and calculations. Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), this is a "mathematical concept. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 15 further recites generating AIC matrices at Nk number of reduced frequencies concurrently using a composite sinusoidal excitation technique. It describes a mathematical operation (creating a matrix) by manipulating variables (Nk), frequency). Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), this is a "mathematical concept. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 16 further recites a. using an index of a column number and an index of a reduced frequency, said wrapper around a high fidelity CFD solver can assemble a file name to save a frequency-domain pressure coefficient distribution; and b. using, for (3*NMLPM*Nk) CFD jobs, where NMLPM is a number of panel grids, said wrapper to generate (3*NMLPN*Nk) files with different file names with each file containing one column of said AIC matrix at a reduced frequency. The claim heavily relies on generating a specific number of files based on a formula 3*NMLPM*Nk). Assembling file names based on indexes is considered a "routine computer function" or organization of data, similar to examples deemed abstract in Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. The additional element of high-fidelity CFD solver and wrapper are merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 17 further recites said AIC assembler assembling said frequency- domain AIC matrix, [AIC(ik)] ECNCFDxNMLPM , at a set of reduced frequencies by retrieving those (3*NMLPM*Nk) files generated by said wrapper around said high fidelity CFD solver. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations are exceptions. Assembling a data structure (AIC(ik)) based on mathematical inputs is generally considered an abstract concept. Merely retrieving files or assembling data, even with high-fidelity CFD, can be viewed as "collecting data" and fall under the “insignificant extra-solution activity" (data gathering) which does not transform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Claim 18 further recites a step of saving said AIC matrices for subsequent repeated use by said GAF generator to perform flutter, aeroservoelatic, and dynamic loads analysis during said flight vehicle's structural design cycle. The methods of calculating and storing data falls under the "mathematical concepts" and "mental processes" under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) of abstract idea. The "saving for later use" step is also seen as "insignificant extra-solution activity" (data gathering or storing) which does not transform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-18 is objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections of the claims. The closest pieces of prior art are the Byun et al. ("Aerodynamic influence coefficient computations using Euler/Navier-Stokes equations on parallel computers." AIA A journal 37.11 (1999): 1393-1400), Li et al. ("Basis Function Approximation of Transonic Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient Matrix." International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS). No. DFRC-E-DAA-TN2088. 2010.), Chen et al. ("Overset field-panel method for unsteady transonic aerodynamic influence coefficient matrix generation." AIA A journal 42.9 (2004): 1775-1787) and Bombardieri, Rocco. ("Aerostructural optimization and aeroelasticity of new generation aircraft." (2021).) The closest references alone and in combination do not teach the claimed features such as
b. computing midlevel panel grids by connecting coarser grid points from said computational fluid dynamics surface mesh; c. computing mode shapes of said panel grids from said midlevel panel grids to create a midlevel panel model (MLPM); f. compute an amplitude excitation matrix responsive to said modal assurance criterion using a 3D master point excitation (MPE) preprocessor; g. provide said amplitude excitation matrix and said CFD meshes to a wrapper around a high-fidelity CFD solver; h. assemble an aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrix responsive to output from said wrapper around said high-fidelity CFD solver.
claimed in the claim 11. Claims 12-18 are the dependent claims of claim 11. Therefore, claims 11-18 as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the prior art of the record and the available field of prior art. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 and 112 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valente, Carmine. Efficient and Accurate Gust Loads Simulations. Diss. University of Bristol, 2018.
Discussing a new approach to evaluate a correction matrix to post multiply the Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient matrix in the Doublet-Lattice Method. This overcomes the limitations when used to investigate those flight conditions characterized by nonlinear aerodynamic effects. The correction approach has been formulated in the frequency domain to fit with the DLM formulation and the correction coefficients computed are complex numbers, which are intended to capture the unsteady aerodynamic effects associated with shock movement and nonlinearities.
Chen, P. C., Zhichao Zhang, and Eli Livne. "Design-oriented computational fluid dynamics-based unsteady aerodynamics for flight-vehicle aeroelastic shape optimization." AIA A Journal 53.12 (2015): 3603-3619.
i. Discussing on lifting-surface computational fluid dynamics-based unsteady aerodynamics and flutter simulation, and it offers, in addition to the sensitivity-analysis technology described, new insights, not available earlier, regarding the functional dependence of key aeroelastic responses on airplane planform shape, and the accuracy in the cases studied here of Taylor-series based approximations commonly used in multidisciplinary design optimization.
6. All claims 11-18 are rejected.
7. 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
Prosecution Insights