DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on Apr. 16th, 2026. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-8 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of informalities
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 not rejected under § 102/103. See Jan. 2026 Non-final Act. at 1 for the rationale which is incorporated herein by reference, and clarified on: The state of the prior art indicates that the particular bolting/welding pattern recited in the claims is conventional and well-known, as is the use of optimization such as by finite element software for optimizing sequences of joining parts. However, what is not taught fairly in ordered combination is the particular sequence recited in the claims (see the first to fourth fixed joining points/areas), wherein the first one is determined based a static/dynamic analysis, and wherein after the four are determined in order, then a fifth one is obtained as a final joining point/area using optimization analysis.
E.g. see Faiq, Muhammad, and Rizwan Alim Mufti. "Welding sequence optimization for the fabrication of Box Girder." 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technologies (ICET). IEEE, 2016. See figure 7, and table 1 for sequence # 4, and the conclusion: “The results clearly dictates that sequence 4 produces minimum distortions and therefore is announced as the optimum welding sequence for fabricating the box girder.” And see §§I-II as well
This action is Final
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/Amendments
Regarding the objections
Withdrawn in view of amendment. New objection as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding the § 112 Rejections and § 112(f) invocation
Withdrawn in view of amendment.
Regarding the § 101 Rejection
Maintained, updated as necessitated by amendment.
With respect to the remarks, the exacting alleged improvement is not an improvement to technology, but rather a bare assertation of a desired result.
See (En Banc) Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020) as was discussed in the rejection.
To clarify, the present claims, akin to American Axle’s purely result oriented “tuning” step, merely recite: “and performing the optimization analysis [akin to the tuning] of obtaining a final joining point or a final joining area that joins each of the parts assemblies in the automotive body model excluding the selected four or more fixed joining points or the selected four or more fixed joining areas for improving dynamic stiffness related to vibration characteristics of an automotive body of the automobile, wherein the selecting includes:” – and ¶ 2: “Indices of stiffness of a structural body include static stiffness and dynamic stiffness. The static stiffness is improved when the spring constant is increased independently of the mass of the structural body according 20 to Hooke's law. On the other hand, in the dynamic stiffness, the shape of the structural body is periodically changed by the input of the periodic load from the vibration point, and the vibration characteristics are related. For example, the dynamic stiffness in vibration 25 of a single-degree of freedom system is evaluated by a frequency co expressed by co = (K/M) o. 5 using a stiffness K (corresponding to stiffness matrix in case of vibration of multi-degree of freedom system) of the structural body and a mass M of the structural body, and the dynamic stiffness 30 is improved as the frequency co increases by increasing the stiffness K.” – i.e. Hooke’s Law (American Axle) and another scientific truism express as mathematical prose (i.e. another equation for use in math calculations).
What is missing in the present claims is a particular technological method to actually achieve the desired result, e.g. a particular manner in how finite element software is used to achieve the desired result, however the disclosure only conveys (e.g. ¶ 71) that “commercially available finite element method can be used”, which lacks any particularity in how it is to be used, but merely conveys automating an abstract idea with commonplace software on a generic computer, which is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims recite “selecting a joining candidate…as a [second/third/fourth] fixed joining…” – at issue is the repeat recitations of “a joining candidate”. Examiner suggests disambiguating modifiers of first/second/third, etc., e.g. selecting a second joining candidate …as a second fixed joining point or second fixed joining area. Examiner also notes another way to rephase this and improve conciseness is to make the later recitations akin to the current recitation of “selecting a first fixed joining point or a first fixed joining area from among the plurality of joining candidates for each parts assembly based on a result of the static analysis or the dynamic analysis,” – e.g. selecting a second fixed joining point/area as having a first distance farthest…”
Some of the dependent claims also recite this and objected to under similar rationales, specifically claims 2-3, and their parallels
Independent claims recite multiple recitations of “each parts assembly” but the later recitations do not refer back to the former, e.g. each of the parts assemblies (note the first recitation is plural assemblies). Dependent claim 4 and its parallel objected to for similar rationale
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 5 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 5, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
performing a static analysis or a dynamic analysis on the automotive body model in which the plurality of joining candidates are set, and ¶ 43: “The static analysis is to obtain displacement, a load, or the like generated in a structural body model when a loading condition under which a constant load acts on a for example, simple structural analysis (stiffness analysis or the like) for applying a loading condition for applying a 5 static load to the structural body model, or topology”
In view of MPEP § 2106.07: “When evaluating a claimed invention for compliance with the substantive law on eligibility, examiners should review the record as a whole (e.g., the specification, claims, the prosecution history, and any relevant case law precedent or prior art) before reaching a conclusion with regard to whether the claimed invention sets forth patent eligible subject matter”, this is akin to the abstract idea of (En Banc) Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020), its directed to “Hooke’s Law”. Instant disclosure ¶ 2: “The static stiffness is improved when the spring constant is increased independently of the mass of the structural body according to Hooke's law.” To clarify, the instant specification, at multiple places, alleges the improvement lies in improving the “stiffness” of the vehicle, e.g. ¶ 128 – in American Axle, the limitations at issue: “tuning a mass and a stiffness of at least one liner,” namely, “controlling a mass and stiffness of at least one liner to configure the liner to match a relevant frequency or frequencies,” wherein this was a claim to a “driveline system” with a “shaft assembly” and the like.
To clarify, Hooke’s Law is Force = -k*x, wherein k is the spring constant, x is the displacement of the spring, and F is the force [a load]. The static analysis performance is merely the act of calculating, using Hooke’s Law, F= -kx, with F being set to the applied static load (static force), and obtain “displacement”.
The dynamic analysis is similarly a math calculation in textual for - ¶ 2: “For example, the dynamic stiffness in vibration 25 of a single-degree of freedom system is evaluated by a frequency co expressed by co = (K/M) o. 5 using a stiffness K (corresponding to stiffness matrix in case of vibration of multi-degree of freedom system)” and ¶ 47: “Meanwhile, the dynamic analysis is to obtain vibration characteristics when a periodic load acts on a structural body model,…”
See ¶¶ 44 and 48 to further clarify on the things “calculated” in these acts.
Also, ¶ 80: “On the other hand, in a case where the frequency response analysis is performed as the dynamic analysis, similarly to the simple structural analysis,”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
setting a plurality of joining candidates at a plurality of candidate positions for joining each of parts assemblies; - mental judgement/opinion, e.g. a person observing parts to be joined (e.g. in a mental visualization, drawings on paper, or observing the parts themselves sitting on a workbench) and judging places where they can be joined.
setting, in an automotive body model of an automobile including a plurality of parts joined as each of the parts assemblies, the selected four or more fixed joining points or the selected four or more fixed joining areas without being a target of an optimization analysis, and setting a target joining candidate of the optimization analysis; - similar mental process as above.
and performing the optimization analysis of obtaining a final joining point or a final joining area that joins each of the parts assemblies in the automotive body model excluding the selected four or more fixed joining points or the selected four or more fixed joining areas for improving dynamic stiffness related to vibration characteristics of an automotive body of the automobile, wherein the selecting includes: - a mental process, but for the mere invocation of generic, commercially read software used in its ordinary capacity to do this step. To clarify, this is merely a person mentally judging/providing an opinion of which points/areas to join the parts in, wherein they mentally judge to use software as a tool to optimize one of the points, while not optimizing another point.
¶ 71: “Then, as the optimization analysis unit 19e, for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method can be used.” And ¶ 98: “Then, the optimization processing in the optimization analysis step S7e can be performed using, 25 for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method.”
performing a static analysis or a dynamic analysis on the automotive body model in which the plurality of joining candidates are set, and selecting a first fixed joining point or a first fixed joining area from among the plurality of joining candidates for each parts assembly based on a result of the static analysis or the dynamic analysis,, - a mental process, given the simplicity of the equations that may be used (e.g. Hooke’s law, the equation in ¶ 2), or with physical aids. The selection is merely a mental judgement/opinion based on observing the results of the mental evaluation of the math.
selecting a joining candidate having a first distance farthest from the first fixed joining point or the first fixed joining area among the plurality of joining candidates, as a second fixed joining point or a second fixed joining area in each parts assembly, selecting a joining candidate having a second distance farthest from a midpoint on a straight line connecting the first fixed joining point or the first fixed joining area and the second fixed joining point or the second fixed joining area, among the plurality of joining candidates, as a third fixed joining point or a third fixed joining area, and selecting a joining candidate having a third distance farthest from the third fixed joining point or the third fixed joining area among the plurality of joining candidates excluding the first fixed joining point or the first fixed joining area and the second fixed joining point or the second fixed joining area as a fourth fixed joining point or a fourth fixed joining area,. – a series of mental steps, readily doable in a person’s head, or using pen and paper (e.g. graphing paper and a ruler as aids). This is merely selecting a few more points for joining, based on simple distance estimations, e.g. with a ruler, or purely by mental observation.
To clarify, this is merely the position of points in geometry, using simple mental geometry measures of distance. See fig. 8-9, as its merely judging where in geometry to place points.
To further clarify, the Examiner notes that such a multi-point selection in geometry is akin to the mental process of a mechanic who decided to follow a bolting procedure where it was in a star/criss-cross pattern, i.e. judge a first bolt to install, then go opposite of that bolt (farthest distance) to the bolt hole further away and apply that bolt. Then, to keep the criss-cross going, go to the center of a line between these two points, and go furthest away from that, etc. To clarify, a simple visualization of such a mental judgement of points/bolt holes:
PNG
media_image1.png
843
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, after the positions are first selected and fixed by using a star/criss-cross pattern, the next step is merely using generic software to optimize the location of the next bolt (or the mechanic may simply mentally pick one, e.g. by observing some visible deformation, so applying the bolt to reduce the deformation at the nearest hole).
Such a mental process is a long-standing one, codified into various industry standards as well, e.g. Hamel, Scott, and David Hoisington. High-mast light poles anchor nut loosening in Alaska: an investigation of field monitoring and finite-element analysis. No. INE/AUTC 14.13. Alaska. Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2014. § 4.4.2: “The anchor rods at Peter’s Creek were tightened in a similar manner to those at the Weighstation. Turn-of-the-nut method was again utilized, along with a 24-bolt star pattern, shown in Figure 4.12” and see the figure:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
E.g. Jung, Gong H., Wesley Pudwill, and Elysia J. Sheu. "Study of Alternative Assembly Patterns Using Finite Element Analysis and Lab Tests." Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Vol. 51616. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018. Page 2: “The legacy assembly method defined in ASME PCC-1 uses a combination of star and circular patterns as shown in Fig. 3 [3]. It has been well-recognized and used in various industries to minimize bolt cross talk. Alternatives to the legacy pattern have also been studied in an effort to reduce bolted joint assembly time and provide more reliable and repeatable bolt loads [6, 7]. These methods are presented in ASME PCC-1 [3].” – see fig. 3-5 for further clarity, note in fig. 3 the first pass is 1->13 [furthest from 1]->7 [again, that center line but furthest away], then 19 [furthest from 7], similar in fig 4 and fig. 5
E.g. Zhu, Linbo, Abdel-Hakim Bouzid, and Jun Hong. "A novel methodology to optimize the tightening sequence in bolted flange joints." Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Vol. 58936. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019. Introudction, ¶¶ 1-2, incl.: “Elastic interaction is a load alternation phenomenon that occurs in bolts used to clamp joint members together when a bolt or a group of bolts are tightened. Depending on the stiffness of the joint, the bolt preload may change by up to 50% in bolted flange joints [4]. The risk of leakage failure under service loading is consequently increased because of this preload change. To minimize the scatter due to elastic interaction, many passes tightening sequences were suggested in ASME PCC-1[5].” And on page 4, col. 2, ¶ 2: “Two tightening strategies, namely the criss-cross pattern, and the sequential clockwise pattern, are used to simulate the optimized tightening of the bolted flange joints. Referring to Fig. 2, the criss-cross tightening order is 1-5-3-7-2-6-4-8, while the sequential tightening order is 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8”
Bibel, US 5,278,775 col. 7, ¶ 2: “In the initial testing procedure, a three test sequence was performed, with each test consisting of one tightening pass using a standard four point star 25 sequence.”
And also, such a mental process is performed by the layman as well, when changing the tire on their car, it is a best practice to do such a star pattern.
Jiveshwar Sharma, “Tightening Lug Nuts: The Criss-Cross Pattern Explained”, Dec. 2019, URL: tyreplex(dot)com/news/how-to-tighten-lug-nuts-on-a-car-the-criss-cross-pattern/: “The criss-cross pattern of tightening lug nuts is an unstated law that is widely advocated for a good reason. It is an inexplicit yet widespread practice that is followed by everyone from your local mechanic to the guy stuck in the middle of the highway attempting to replace his flat. However, even today, many people are not aware of the scientific reason behind this peculiar practice and that is exactly why we're here. Here's the secret: The simple reason behind the star pattern of torquing your lug nuts is to reduce wheel flexing and shifting. You see when you tighten a single nut, it keeps getting tighter and tighter till the point the wheel mounting face (what you're tightening against) gets stuck to the hub.
And such an abstract idea has already been used for welds.
Moradi, Milad, and Hartmut Pasternak. "A study on the influence of various welding sequence schemes on the gain in strength of square hollow section steel T-joint." 대한용접· 접합학회지 35.4 (2017): 41-50. Fig. 3, describing this wit the term of art of “skip welding”
Faiq, Muhammad, and Rizwan Alim Mufti. "Welding sequence optimization for the fabrication of Box Girder." 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technologies (ICET). IEEE, 2016. See figure 7, and table 1 for sequence # 4, and the conclusion: “The results clearly dictates that sequence 4 produces minimum distortions and therefore is announced as the optimum welding sequence for fabricating the box girder.”
Gannon, Liam, et al. "Effect of welding sequence on residual stress and distortion in flat-bar stiffened plates." Marine Structures 23.3 (2010): 385-404. Page 389, ¶ 2, discussion of fig. 4, then see fig. 4 (b, c, and d) which show this sequence of fixed points in a star/criss-cross pattern.
In summary, all this claim is directed to is to take a long-standing mental practice of tightening bolts in a star pattern, wherein the first bolt location is to be determine by a simple math calculation, e.g. with Hooke’s Law, the later bolt locations are all fixed as the star pattern, until 4 bolts are in, and then generically finding the most optimal next bolt to tighten by using commercially available software in its ordinary manner. In other words, an abstract idea, but use a computer and other existing, commercially available technology, as a tool to perform it and achieve a desired result, which is not an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more (see below for details).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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), including the “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”:
The “computer” and similar such recitations (the device and units of claim 5)
The “optimization analysis” -¶ 71: “Then, as the optimization analysis unit 19e, for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method can be used.” And ¶ 98: “Then, the optimization processing in the optimization analysis step S7e can be performed using, 25 for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method.”
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Should doing this for “an automobile” not be considered part of the abstract idea, it would be considered as generally linking to a field of use of automobiles, given the generic nature of the parts and part assemblies, e.g. such an abstract idea is readily also performed for other part assemblies, e.g. the Empire State Building, an office chair, a laptop computer, a bed, etc.
The recitation of:
and the plurality of parts are joined as each parts assembly of the automotive body at the first, second, third and fourth fixed joining points or at the first, second, third and fourth fixed joining areas. – this is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction of how this is to be performed, as well as an insignificant token post-solution activity. To clarify, see American Axle as cited above for its claim at issue. See ¶ 105 which merely describe the use of a litany of generic welding techniques that may be used.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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), including the “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”:
The “computer” and similar such recitations (the device and units of claim 5)
The “optimization analysis” -¶ 71: “Then, as the optimization analysis unit 19e, for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method can be used.” And ¶ 98: “Then, the optimization processing in the optimization analysis step S7e can be performed using, 25 for example, optimization analysis software using a commercially available finite element method.”
The following limitations are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h):
Should doing this for “an automobile” not be considered part of the abstract idea, it would be considered as generally linking to a field of use of automobiles, given the generic nature of the parts and part assemblies, e.g. such an abstract idea is readily also performed for other part assemblies, e.g. the Empire State Building, an office chair, a laptop computer, a bed, etc.
The recitation of:
and the plurality of parts are joined as each parts assembly of the automotive body at the first, second, third and fourth fixed joining points or at the first, second, third and fourth fixed joining areas. – this is considered as mere instructions to “apply it” given the lack of restriction of how this is to be performed, as well as an insignificant token post-solution activity. To clarify, see American Axle as cited above for its claim at issue. See ¶ 105 which merely describe the use of a litany of generic welding techniques that may be used.
As a further point of clarity, optimizing welding sequencing using finite element software (e..g see ¶ 26 of the specification) is WURC. See:
Beik, Varshan, Hormoz Marzbani, and Reza Jazar. "Welding sequence optimisation in the automotive industry: A review." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 233.17 (2019): 5945-5952. Section “Welding sequence optimisation”: “Welding sequence optimisation (WSO) strongly impacts distortion and residual stress in the welded structures therefore it has been of interest to various researchers.10 When exploring different welding sequences for optimal geometry of the automotive body, generation of an experimental sample using all possible sequences is not feasible due to cost, time and complexity. Hence, common practice is to replace real experiments with computational simulation tools such as finite element analysis (FEA) (Figure 2). FEA is a strong, accurate and detailed tool; however, the generation of FE models requires extensive engineering expertise and is often very complex. As a result, it is not possible to create FE models for every single welding sequence. Conventional industrial practice is that the weld sequence is based on the engineer experience. Evidently, this is operator dependent and does not necessarily guarantee optimal results… Studies aiming to optimise welding sequences date back to the 1940s…” – e.g. see table 1, which list several studies in this practice, wherein numerous of these studies use “FEA” in combination with optimization math algorithms.
Coria, Ibai, et al. "Optimized bolt tightening sequences in bolted joints using superelement FE modeling technique." International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Vol. 51203. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018. Abstract, introduction last three paragraphs, also page 5 col. 2, ¶ 3, note the sequence is the star/criss-cross.
Faiq, Muhammad, and Rizwan Alim Mufti. "Welding sequence optimization for the fabrication of Box Girder." 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technologies (ICET). IEEE, 2016. See figure 7, and table 1 for sequence # 4, and the conclusion: “The results clearly dictates that sequence 4 produces minimum distortions and therefore is announced as the optimum welding sequence for fabricating the box girder.” And see §§I-II as well
Gannon, Liam, et al. "Effect of welding sequence on residual stress and distortion in flat-bar stiffened plates." Marine Structures 23.3 (2010): 385-404. Abstract and § 2, as well as fig. 4
Nassar, Sayed A., Zhijun Wu, and Xianjie Yang. "A new tightening methodology for gasketed joints based on nonlinear finite element analysis." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Vol. 48258. 2008. Abstract and § 3.3
Nassar, Sayed A., Zhijun Wu, and Xianjie Yang. "Achieving uniform clamp load in gasketed bolted joints using a nonlinear finite element model." Journal of pressure vessel technology 132.3 (2010). Abstract, § 1 ¶ 2, and § 3, also fig. 4
Shao, Qing, et al. "Optimization of the welding sequence and direction for the side beam of a bogie frame based on the discrete particle swarm algorithm." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 232.8 (2018): 1423-1435. Abstract, section “FE modelling” and subsections, then fig. 5, then page 1427, in particular paragraph split between the columns, then fig. 6, and # 3 in conclusion: “The best plan of the weighted value is II (4123), IV (7658), and III (10), and the result also has a certain degree of reduction”
Yuan, Shuxia, et al. "A method to achieve uniform clamp force in a bolted rotor with curvic couplings." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 230.5 (2016): 335-344. Abstract, and fig. 1, also see the introduction, and the section on page 2 discussing fig. 1-2
Zargar, Setayesh Hakkak, Mohammadreza Farahani, and Mohamad Kazem Besharati Givi. "Numerical and experimental investigation on the effects of submerged arc welding sequence on the residual distortion of the fillet welded plates." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 230.4 (2016): 654-661. Abstract and fig 10, also introduction and section “FE Modelling”
Zhu, Linbo, et al. "Elastic interaction in bolted flange joints: An analytical model to predict and optimize bolt load." Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 140.4 (2018): 041202. Abstract, fig. 3, and § 3 last paragraph
Zhu, Linbo, Abdel-Hakim Bouzid, and Jun Hong. "A novel methodology to optimize the tightening sequence in bolted flange joints." Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. Vol. 58936. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019. Introduction and section FE modeling.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claims 2-3 are merely stating to do a mental judgement of pick the largest value from a list of values, wherein these values are calculated. ¶ 44: “Next, the joining candidates 41 in each parts assembly 39 are ranked based on these calculated values, and the joining candidate 41 having the highest rank is selected as the first fixed 15 joining point 43a in the parts assembly 39”; ¶ 48: “for example, even in a case where frequency response analysis is performed, stress, strain, strain energy, load, or the like are calculated”
Claim 4 is rejected is merely specifying a center position (a mental judgement, e.g. from a mental observation), followed by distance calculations
Claims 6-8 rejected under similar rationales as 2-4
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
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 DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
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.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights