DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the amendment filed on Nov. 15 th , 2022. A summary of this action: Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement Claims 1-20 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. Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jiakun . A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156. Claim(s) 2-3, 11-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jiakun . A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156 taken in further view of Abaqus. Getting Started with Abaqus. Version 6.8. Copyright 2008. Accessed via URL: sites(dot)engineering(dot)ucsb(dot)edu/~tshugar/GET_ STARTED( dot)pdf Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jiakun . A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156 in view of Pineda, Evan J., and Anthony M. Waas . "Numerical implementation of a multiple-ISV thermodynamically-based work potential theory for modeling progressive damage and failure in fiber-reinforced laminates." International journal of fracture 182.1 (2013): 93-122. Claim 1, 10, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8, and 15 of copending Application No. 17987417 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156. Claim 2-3, 11-12, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8, and 15 of copending Application No. 17987417 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156 taken in further view of Abaqus. Getting Started with Abaqus. Version 6.8. Copyright 2008. Accessed via URL: sites(dot)engineering(dot)ucsb(dot)edu/~tshugar/GET_ STARTED( dot)pdf Claims 8-9, 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 and 20 of copending Application No. 17987417 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156 in further view of Pineda, Evan J., and Anthony M. Waas . "Numerical implementation of a multiple-ISV thermodynamically-based work potential theory for modeling progressive damage and failure in fiber-reinforced laminates." International journal of fracture 182.1 (2013): 93-122. This action is non- f inal 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. Grace Period Exceptions to § 102(a)(1) See the June 2023 IDS for its citations to Nguyen et al., # 35-36, as the Examiner notes that those disclosures, made by the instant inventive entity, appear to be related to the instant application. Both of these references are indicated by Sciencedirect (the hosting journal website) to have been published online on Nov. 16 th , 2020 and name all and only the instant inventors as authors. The instant application was effectively filed on Nov. 15 th , 2021, thus the grace period extends to Nov. 15 th , 2020, and thus these two references do not qualify under § 102(a)(1) in view of § 102(b)(1). MPEP § 2153.01(a): “ A disclosure made within the grace period is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 ) if it is apparent from the disclosure itself that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. Specifically, Office personnel may not apply a disclosure as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 ) if the disclosure: (1) was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) names the inventor or a joint inventor as an author or an inventor; and (3) does not name additional persons as authors on a printed publication or joint inventors on a patent. This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons named as authors in the publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A, B, and C, and the publication names as authors A and B), and the publication is one year or less before the effective filing date, it is apparent that the disclosure is a grace period inventor disclosure , and the publication is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). ” Claim Interpretation Several of the dependent claims recite the term “peak” – these are interpreted in view of fig. 4 and accompanying description. Claim Interpretation – 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: generating, using a structured hex meshing algorithm, a plurality of fibrous strips along a fiber direction based on the fibrous strip width and the fibrous strip spacing, and generating, using a free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm, a bulk element between each of the plurality of fibrous strips, wherein the FE mesh defines a portion of a composite laminate material; Which invoke § 112(f) per MPEP § 2181(II)(B): “ For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN , Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm .’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999 )) … EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S] pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data —the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714 … See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined , for example, as " a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task ." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945. ” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon. The above noted claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B): “ It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945 … Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. For example, in Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 119 USPQ2d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit determined that the term "symbol generator" is a computer-implemented means-plus- function limitation and that "[t]he specifications of the patents-in- suit do not disclose an operative algorithm for the claim elements reciting 'symbol generator.'" 830 F.3d at 1348-49, 119 USPQ2d at 1529-30 … The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the term "symbol generator" is indefinite , observing that "although the district court recognized that the specification describes , in general terms, that symbols are generated based on the latitude and longitude of the participants, it nonetheless determined that the specification fails to disclose an algorithm or description as to how those symbols are actually generated ." 830 F.3d at 1349, 119 USPQ2d at 1530 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) … Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334-35, 86 USPQ2d at 1240 ( explaining that "the [patent’s] description of the embodiments is simply a description of the outcome of the claimed functions , not a description of the structure, i.e., the computer programmed to execute a particular algorithm") …. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), " logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function … The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 ( stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome , not a means for achieving that outcome ); Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002; see also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc., 355 Fed. App'x 389, 394-95 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that implicit or inherent disclosure of a class of algorithms for performing the claimed functions is not sufficient, and the purported "one-step" algorithm is not an algorithm at all) (unpublished). ” The specification repeatedly recites the use of these two algorithms , but the disclosure does not disclose a “sequence of steps” for how to achieve that result, but rather merely the result it (akin to the “symbol generator” of Advanced Ground Information Systems as noted in the MPEP citations above). For the structured hex meshing algorithm , the specification merely conveys the functionality claimed with no details on the sequence of steps to be performed by the algorithm itself: E.g. ¶ 42: “The mesh generation tool 110d may also access or otherwise include instructions that cause the processor 102 to execute the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b and/or the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a in order to create the meshing within the element strips and the bulk elements separating the element strips” and ¶ 43: “However, the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b may generate each fibrous strip at the fibrous strip spacing apart from each adjacent fibrous strip, and the algorithm 110b may generate each fibrous strip with a uniform width, as defined by the user-provided fibrous strip width… ¶ 79: “The bulk element regions of the composite laminate material model 301 are assigned with a free mesh control (e.g., by the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a), while the fibrous strips are meshed with structured hex elements (e.g., by the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b) to ensure each fibrous strip is modeled with exactly one material along the transverse direction.” For the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm, the specification merely conveys the functionality claimed with no details on the sequence of steps to be performed by the algorithm itself: ¶ 42 as cited above, then ¶ 44: “The free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a may implement any suitable type of meshing procedure in accordance with any suitable free mesh algorithm (e.g., sweep mesh with advancing front algorithm).” – note in the above MPEP citation: “ Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc., 355 Fed. App'x 389, 394-95 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that implicit or inherent disclosure of a class of algorithms for performing the claimed functions is not sufficient , and the purported "one-step" algorithm is not an algorithm at all) (unpublished). ”” ¶ 63: “…Regardless, as previously mentioned, the arbitrary shapes comprising the bulk elements 200a may be generated using a structured mesh (e.g., by the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b) and/or a free mesh (e.g., by the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a) based on the geometry of the region of the composite laminate material in which the bulk elements 200a are located.” ¶ 79: “The bulk element regions of the composite laminate material model 301 are assigned with a free mesh control (e.g., by the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a), while the fibrous strips are meshed with structured hex elements (e.g., by the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b) to ensure each fibrous strip is modeled with exactly one material along the transverse direction.” The Examiner suggests amending the claims to remove the recitations of using these algorithms, given the lack of description in the specification for what sequence of steps these algorithms are to perform to achieve these desired resulting functionalities as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement . The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon. See the above § 112(f) invocation and corresponding § 112(b) rejection including the citations to the disclosure in the § 112(b) rejection. See MPEP §2181(IV): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).” and MPEP 2181(II)(B): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.” 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. Claim s 1-20 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 1 0 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus. Claims 10 , and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof. Step 2A – Prong 1 The claims recit e 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: and determining, by the one or more processors, a predicted mechanical response of the composite laminate material by : generating a constitutive model corresponding to the composite laminate material based on the FE mesh – math calculations in textual form. See ¶ 103. ¶ 60: “ …. solving equations to determine the micro damage (e.g., Schapery ) parameter. ” ¶¶ 87-88, 90-92. 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: creating, by one or more processors, a finite-element (FE) mesh by: generating, using a structured hex meshing algorithm, a plurality of fibrous strips along a fiber direction based on the fibrous strip width and the fibrous strip spacing, and generating, using a free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm, a bulk element between each of the plurality of fibrous strips, wherein the FE mesh defines a portion of a composite laminate material; A mental process, but do it on a computer/in a computer environment (the computer in the preamble, and the algorithm to be used by the computer). See fig. 2 – a person is readily able to make such a simple 2D drawing, e.g. by mental observations, evaluations, and judgements. Such as a person mentally observing (e.g. in a mental visualization in their own mind) a single layer of a composite material, comprising of the fibers in one direction with matrix material between each of the fibers, and then drawing out strips representing each of the fibers, and drawing out a bulk element between each of the fibers. 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”: See the preambles of the claims, and the algorithms to be used. See ¶ 41: “In certain aspects, the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a, the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b may be provided and/or executed by a suitable commercial software package, such as ABAQUS/CAE , or the like.” – see ¶¶ 41-42 to clarify on the generic nature of the processor and the other such recitations The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g): receiving, from a user, a fibrous strip width and a fibrous strip spacing ;… , and inputting a stress value or a strain value to the constitutive model to generate the predicted mechanical response. – mere data gathering steps 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”: See the preambles of the claims, and the algorithms to be used. See ¶ 41: “In certain aspects, the free hex-dominated advancing front meshing algorithm 110a, the structured hex meshing algorithm 110b may be provided and/or executed by a suitable commercial software package, such as ABAQUS/CAE , or the like.” – see ¶¶ 41-42 to clarify on the generic nature of the processor and the other such recitations The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g): receiving, from a user, a fibrous strip width and a fibrous strip spacing ;… , and inputting a stress value or a strain value to the constitutive model to generate the predicted mechanical response. – mere data gathering steps In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d): receiving, from a user, a fibrous strip width and a fibrous strip spacing ;… , and inputting a stress value or a strain value to the constitutive model to generate the predicted mechanical response - this is considered similar to the example WURC activity as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) ; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;” 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 Claim 2 recites another mental step of the partitioning (i.e. partitioning an area of geometry of a material into two or more partitions), followed by an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering that is WURC . To clarify, see Abaqus. Getting Started with Abaqus. Version 6.8. Copyright 2008. Accessed via URL: sites(dot)engineering(dot)ucsb(dot)edu/~tshugar/GET_ STARTED( dot)pdf - ABAQUS, § 2.3.8 for “Meshing the model”, in particular subsection “Creating the mesh”: “Basic meshing is a two-stage operation: first you seed the edges of the part instance, and then you mesh the part instance. You select the number of seeds based on the desired element size or on the number of elements that you want along an edge, and Abaqus/CAE places the nodes of the mesh at the seeds whenever possible… To seed and mesh the model: 1. From the main menu bar, select Seed→Part to seed the part instance. Note: You can gain more control of the resulting mesh by seeding each edge of the part instance individually, but it is not necessary for this example. The Global Seeds dialog box appears. The dialog box displays the default element size that Abaqus/CAE will use to seed the part instance. This default element size is based on the size of the part instance. A relatively large seed value will be used so that only one element will be created per region. 2. In the Global Seeds dialog box, specify an approximate global element size of 1.0, and click OK to create the seeds and to close the dialog box. 3. From the main menu bar, select Mesh→Part to mesh the part instance…” – see the below ABAQUS citations in the § 103 rejection of these claims for more clarification on the WURC nature of this seeding step Claim 3 is further limiting the abstract idea itself Claim 4 is merely adding a mental process of a mental comparison followed by a mental judgement (compare two numbers, judge the failure type based on the comparison) Claim 5 is further limiting the abstract idea itself, e.g. by assigning differing material properties to some strips so the strength (a material property) was non-uniform. Specification discloses that in the exemplary, this is merely statistical distributions, i.e. ¶ 59: “ distributions by sampling new values from the associated probability distributions ” – which if the claim recited this would be a math concept (see SAP v. InvestPic in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Claims 6-7 are merely further limiting the abstract idea Claim 8 is further limiting the abstract idea, cf. fig. 4 then ¶¶ 86-91 Claim 9 is further limiting the abstract idea, cf. fig. 4 then ¶¶ 86-91 Dependent claims of the other independent claims are rejected under similar rationales as their parallel claims discussed above. The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Jiakun . A discrete modeling approach for progressive failure analysis of composite laminates and filament-wound pressure vessels. Cornell University. PhD Dissertation, 2020 in view of Fagiano , Christian, et al. "Computational geometrical and mechanical modeling of woven ceramic composites at the mesoscale." Composite Structures 112 (2014): 146-156. Regarding Claim 1 Liu teaches: A computer implemented method for semi-discrete modeling of progressive damage and failure in composite laminate materials, the method comprising: ( Liu, abstract: “In order to overcome the limitations of existing methods, we present an auto-generated geometry-based discrete finite element model (AGDM). This new approach is realized by in-house developed preprocessing commands, and can be adopted for various applications. Then we demonstrate a FE analysis, in which the predicted damage pattern and tensile strengths of the tested specimens are in excellent agreement with X-ray and data from experimental observations…” -then, see chapter 5 as cited to below, include seeing § 5.1 incl.: “Essentially these ’interface parts’ anticipate the occurrences and various locations of one of the three crack types (failure modes) and their possible interactions… But these embedded cracklets may trigger upon certain criteria, and become segments of cracks and material discontinuities. Specifically, there are ( i ) ’yarn cracklets’ for yarn tensile fractures, (ii) ’matrix cracklets’ anticipating interface damages between adjacent yarns in a ply and subsequent intra-ply matrix cracks propagated through linking of failed matrix cracklets, (iii) ’delamination cracklets’ anticipating the triggering of inter-ply delaminations and their growth from such cracklet linking. Load transfer from failure of a cracklet may trigger failure of a neighboring cracklet of the same or a different type, thus generating laminate damage in the form of a growing networks of cracks. Matching mesh are ensured at any potential crack intersections in 3D space” – see § 5.1 to further clarify incl. ¶¶ 2-4) receiving, from a user, a fibrous strip width and a fibrous strip spacing; (Liu, see chapter 5, as cited to above, then see § 5.1: “ The key input parameters describing the geometry and layup angles of the laminate plies, taken to be a rectangular prism, are listed in Table 5.1. ” – see the table 5.1 – to clarify, “ Upon establishing the user-input parameter values, the code begins by discretizing each ply (rectangular in the current implementation) consists of discrete yarns and yarn-to-yarn interfaces (to anticipate matrix cracks between yarns) ” then: “ A diagram illustrating the initial ply-level discretization process is shown in Fig. 5.1, where the thicknesses of yarn interface [example of fibrous strip width] , tm are enlarged for clearer view, … For the ith ply, the required number and locations of discrete yarns and potential yarn interfaces are computed based on the layup angle, θi , the matrix crack spacing of that ply, di, (approximately the fiber/epoxy yarn width) and the thickness of the yarn interfaces, tm. ” – i.e. in fig. 5.1, see t m which is an example of the strip spacing, as listed in table 5.1 creating, by one or more processors, a finite-element (FE) mesh by: generating, using a structured hex meshing algorithm, a plurality of fibrous strips along a fiber direction based on the fibrous strip width and the fibrous strip spacing, and generating, … , a bulk element between each of the plurality of fibrous strips, wherein the FE mesh defines a portion of a composite laminate material; ( First, as a point of BRI, see ¶ 7: “ a plurality of fibrous strips (also referenced herein as "matrix-splitting elements") ” and ¶ 45, i.e. the fibrous strips in this specification on the elements for the matrix of the composite, whereas the bulk elements are the fibers themselves (note in ¶ 45 the failure modes in particular associated with these two elements) Liu, as cited above, e.g. the abstract: “ auto-generated geometry-based discrete finite element model (AGDM). ” And § 5.2, wherein in § 5.2 (e.g. fig. 5.1) shows generated fibrous strips along a fiber direction as the “Initial ply-level discretization” – to clarify, the bulk elements are the “Yarn”, and the matrix splitting elements/fibrous strips are the interface between the yarns representing “ locations where matrix cracks can potentially initiate and develop). ”) Then, see §§ 5.3-5.4, in particular § 5.3 discusses a partitioning of the yarn/fiber elements wi