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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 02/13/2026.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are added.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
322
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
287
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim of the instant invention does not demonstrate any specific improvement over traditional methods, as no clear advantages in terms of speed or computational efficiency within the claim language itself. “It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(III).
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
230
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
363
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitation falls into the “mathematical concept and/or mental process” group of abstract. As applicants’ argument clearly indicating the claimed invention, in light of recites specification, fall under mathematical concepts. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental process and/or mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image5.png
378
683
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental processes/mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 12-17, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 21 has been renumbered 23.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 21-23 are directed to a method.
Claims 11-13, 15-16 are directed to a product.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20-23 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
receiving data relating to one or more desired stiffness characteristics for a manufactured component, wherein the manufactured component comprises an aircraft wing [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
identifying a plurality of cross-sectional cuts for a model relating to the component [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts];
creating variables for a plurality of elements of the model intersected by at least one of the plurality of cross-sectional cuts [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts]; and
determining one or more material properties for the manufactured component, the one or more material properties estimated to meet the one or more desired stiffness characteristics for the manufactured component [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts], comprising:
for each cross-sectional cut, of the plurality of cross-sectional cuts:
determining at least one of the one or more material properties based on identifying one or more of the created variables associated with the cross-sectional cut [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and identifying potential solution to a nonlinear optimization problem using one or more initial estimates for the one or more variables based on the desired stiffness characteristics [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “receiving”. This additional element is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). 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 fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 4, canceled.
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)] and/or [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 10, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per Claims 11-13, and 15, claims 11-13, and 15 are directed to article of manufacture and are eligible under step 1 analysis. These claims recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-3 and 6, and as such are similarly rejected. In addition, claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium which is a generic computer component.
As per Claim 16, independent claim 16 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are similarly rejected. Further, claim 16 recites additional elements of “computer processor” and a “memory”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per Claims 17-18 and 20, claims 17-18 and 20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-4 and 6, and as such are similarly rejected.
As per Claims 21-23, the claims fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dababneh et al (O. Dababneh, T. Kipouros, “Influence of high-fidelity structural models on the predicted mass of aircraft wing using design optimization” pgs. 164-173, 2018) discloses pg. 164 right side column through pg. 165 left side column, With design optimization, one is usually concerned with the chosen form of the structural model and the finite element level of detail in the wingbox that is needed to be considered in order to achieve the required results; pg. 167, right side column, For the CRM wing, the design loads are obtained from two scenarios, related to flight maneuvers and gust conditions, in accordance with the standard airworthiness certification regulations; pg. 172, left side column, The values of the CRM wingbox mass obtained in the current study are compared with the estimated mass values according to the open scientific literature; pg. 172 right side column, This will aim to achieve a better understanding of the actual wingbox structural material distributions in terms of thickness and orientation, and finally to assess the structural behavior of the wing, including global displacement and local stresses. This will be a rather appropriate view compared to that from an industrial design perspective; Figs. 2-5, different cross-sectional cuts and related design parameters; pg. 168 left side column, the thin-walled structures of the CRM wingbox configurations (skins, webs and ribs) were modeled using two-dimensional quadrilateral and triangular shell elements (CQUAD4, CTRAI3) with in-plane membrane and bending stiffness. On the other hand, stringers and spar caps were modeled using one-dimensional rod elements (CROD) with axial stiffness. Finite element models of the CRM wingbox configurations are generated using MSC Patran, based on the physical dimensions and material properties of the structural cross-sectional models as specified in section 3; pg. 169 left side column, These models are discretized into components which act as design optimization zones along the span. These areas include the upper and lower skins, front and rear spar webs, ribs, spar caps and stiffeners. Model 1 contains 168 design zones. Model 2 contains 210 design zones. Model 3 contains 378 design zones. Model 4 contains 1,870 design zones. The chordwise design zones are prescribed by the stringer pitch, while in the spanwise direction the design zones are limited by the rib spacing. In the finite element model, each design field consists of a number of finite elements that all comprise the same thicknesses/cross-sectional areas and stiffness properties.
Druckman et al (US Publication No. 2016/0125107 A1) discloses par [0041] a structural component analyzed by the example fatigue analyzer system 330 may be a structure that has a non-linear response to stress or force, and the fatigue pre-processor 328 can scale the unit loads from a finite element model non-linearly.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular limitation of: “creating variables for a plurality of elements of the model intersected by at least one of the plurality of cross-sectional cuts; and determining at least one of the one or more material properties based on identifying one or more of the created variables associated with the cross- sectional cut and identifying a potential solution to a nonlinear optimization problem using one or more initial estimates for the one or more variables based on the desired stiffness characteristics” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 16.
Conclusion
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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 05/05/2026
Prosecution Insights