DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, and 15 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
No new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 8 July 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant remarks page 14 argues:
The Action appears to assert that simply because the claims include mathematical aspects then the claims must be directed to a mathematical concept. However, this is not the test. Just because features of the claims could be performed using mathematical equations does not mean that the claims must be so directed. Instead, the present claims are not directed to mathematical concepts but instead only relate to mathematical concepts indirectly. See MPEP §2106.04(a) which states "software is not automatically an abstract idea, even if performance of a software task involves an underlying mathematical calculation or relationship. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("That a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction.")" (emphasis added).
Specifically, the MPEP clearly states in §2106.04(a)(2): "a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim."
In addition, this MPEP section states ''when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept" (emphasis added).
In short, Applicant is arguing the instant claims does not recite a mathematical concept but merely involves one.
This argument is unpersuasive.
MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) identifies “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Examiner’s rejection clearly states “Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.” This clearly evaluates claim 1 overall and determines it is directed to specifically the “mathematical algorithm” subcategory of mathematical concepts when considered overall. Furthermore, Examiner’s rejection proceeds to specifically identify the mathematical nature of each underlying step, primarily as comprising respective mathematical calculations. Both the mathematical calculations and mathematical algorithms identified are explicit subcategories of the mathematical concept category of judicially excepted abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are found not merely to involve an abstract idea but explicitly recite and are therefore directed to the identified abstract idea.
Applicant remarks page 14-15 further argues:
Furthermore, the claim must be considered as a whole when considering whether the claim is entirely directed to a mathematical concept. The Action appears to only focus on certain portions of the claim in asserting that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. This is not a proper approach. The claims must be considered as a whole. When Claim 1 is considered as a whole it is clear that the entire claim is not directed to a mathematical concept.
This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner has considered each claim both for their individual parts and for the claim as a whole. Here, while Applicant is arguing that the claim(s) are not directed towards a mathematical concept, Applicant has not provided any identification of alternative or technological subject matter that the claims should be considered as directed towards.
Furthermore, Examiner’s rejection clearly states “Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.”
Applicant remarks page 16 further argues:
Specifically, Applicant states that the application as filed teaches, from page 7 lines 27 to page 8 lines 25, that the claimed method is not limited to a mathematical operation, but is integrated within a broader design and/or manufacturing workflow, in particular as part of a testing phase of the CAD model through physics-based simulations. The claimed method enables preparation of the CAD model for simulation, notably via tessellation, and supports verification of whether the modeled mechanical part satisfies one or more physical criteria.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the alleged practical application of design workflows, a design workflow is not necessarily subject matter eligible as design processes frequently involve abstract ideas in the form of mental design processes and, as here, mathematical concepts. Accordingly, when a claim is directed towards design processes it is usually required to identify specific limitations which confine the claim to improvements a particular useful (i.e. technological) application. See MPEP 2106.05. Here, merely alleging that the claim is directed towards a design workflow fails to confine the claims to a particular useful application or distinguish the identified judicial exception of the claims.
Regarding the alleged practical application of manufacturing workflows, the instant claims do not recite any manufacturing steps. Accordingly, this part of Applicant’s argument is based upon features not claimed.
Applicant remarks page 16 further argues:
By partitioning the CAD 3D model into smaller and less complex regions, the claimed method improves the quality of the resulting mesh, thereby simultaneously enhancing the accuracy of subsequent physical simulations and reducing computational cost.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Improvements to a mathematical concept are not patent eligible subject matter under §101. In particular, improving numerical accuracy or reducing computations of mathematical calculations would not render a mathematical concept as patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant remarks page 17 merely restates office guidance regarding §101 and then concludes at page 18:
Thus, for at least this reason, the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the rejection should be withdrawn.
This argument fails to identify any analysis of why any of the cited rules and office guidance are allegedly relevant for the instant claims. Applicant's argument here fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims results in subject matter eligibility under §101.
Applicant remarks page 18 further argues:
Furthermore, even if the claims were considered to be abstract (which they are not, as is noted above), the claims include significantly more under step 2B of the Alice test.
In particular, the pending claims represent techniques that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
In fact, the claims are directed to a significant improvement. Similarly to the McRO case, the claimed application is able to provide features that were not possible in the past.
Thus, the claims clearly recite a significant technical improvement.
At least on this basis, it is respectfully submitted that the pending claim features do not represent a well-understood, routine, and conventional technique. As discussed with regard to Enfish, the claims represent an improvement that is more than a computer implementation of “fundamental practices long prevalent in their fields" and therefore are not subject to Alice's holdings that such claims are still considered abstract.
This argument is unpersuasive.
The instant claims recite almost no ‘additional’ elements at all. MPEP §2106.04 outlines the multistep §101 framework including steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B as being an evaluation of additional elements. Accordingly, a threshold question for considering any element or ‘technique’ included in the claims is whether or not that element is itself an abstract idea under steps 2A prong 1.
The only claim recitation identified by Examiner as additional element is “obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model.” Even there, the volumetric B-rep is itself a mathematically defined data structure. Because Applicant’s argument here does not identify any other claim element as allegedly an additional limitation, Examiner presumes it is allegedly this “obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model” which is allegedly not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Under step 2B Examiner has pointed to: MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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)
Applicant does not specifically refute Examiner’s findings under step 2B and the noted limitation. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded by a general allegation that some unidentified claim element is allegedly not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 July 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The Specification has been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's objection(s) to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 has been appropriately corrected. Accordingly, Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8-12 under § 112 is withdrawn.
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, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part, the method comprising:
…
detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle;
ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons, the one or more geometrical criteria being selected among at least one of: the detected ribbon is a depression, the detected ribbon is a protrusion, the detected ribbon is closed, or the detected ribbon has a revolution; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons:
partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume; and
for each partition representing a respective sweepable volume tessellating the respective sweepable volume into hexahedral meshes composed of deformed cubes; and
verifying whether the mechanical part represented by a tessellation of the CAD model has a yield stress above a given threshold based on the results of a simulation performed on the hexahedral meshes.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
The geometric shapes of a: depression, protrusion, being “closed,” and having a revolution are mathematical geometric characteristics. Evaluating these geometrical criteria is further recitation of mathematical operation.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
Tessellating sweepable volumes into a hexahedral mesh is a mathematical geometric operation comprising further mathematical subject matter.
Verifying whether a mechanical part represented by the tessellated CAD model has a yield stress above a threshold is mathematical comparison of respective numerical values.
Performing a simulation to determine a numerical yield stress for a tessellated CAD model is an evaluation, judgment, or opinion based on performing respective mathematical calculations. Performing additional mathematical calculations is further recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model;
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g). A volumetric B-rep is itself a mathematically defined data structure.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one more geometrical criteria comprises ranking the detected ribbons in the following ranking order:
a) the detected ribbon is closed and is a protrusion,
b) the detected ribbon is closed and is depression,
c) the detected ribbon is a protrusion,
d) the detected ribbon is a depression, and
e) the detected ribbon is a revolution.
These geometric criteria being a protrusion, depression, or revolution are geometric shapes with geometric definitions within mathematics. Reciting additional mathematical subject matter remains a mathematical concept.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to a) or c) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method further comprises:
isolating the protrusion from the rest of the volumetric B-Rep by:
selecting a concave neighbor of the ribbon, and
extrapolating the concave neighbor up through the volumetric B-Rep.
This isolation of the protrusion is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Selecting and extrapolating a concave neighbor are mathematical steps of the mathematical algorithm.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to b) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
determining whether the detected ribbon has a large impact, the detected ribbon having a large impact if the detected ribbon has a size smaller than a distance between the ribbon and an intersection between the volumetric B-Rep and an extrapolation of the detected ribbon, and
creating a splitting surface which is an offset of a convex neighbor of the ribbon if the detected ribbon has a large impact.
Determining a size with a distance comparison of the geometry is a mathematical operation of geometry.
Creation of the splitting surface is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 5 and 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 5 and 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to d) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
creating a splitting surface by extrapolating the ribbon up through the volumetric B-Rep.
Creation of the splitting surface is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 6, 17, and 18 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein for each detected ribbon ranked according to e) the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method comprises:
splitting a volume enclosed by the ribbon into three volumes one of which is a cylinder.
Splitting the volume is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep further comprises:
detecting one or more smooth surfaces, each detected smooth surface comprising a group of connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep, each pair of connected faces in the group having a smooth junction;
selecting one or more square smooth surfaces among the detected one or more smooth surfaces, each square smooth surface being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle; and
detecting ribbons by selecting a set of one or more connected surfaces of the one or more detected square smooth surfaces, each detected ribbon having a width of one of the one or more selected connected surfaces.
Detecting a smooth surface is an evaluation of respective mathematical criteria defining a surface as smooth.
Selecting a square smooth surface which is homeomorphic to a rectangle is further recitation of mathematical evaluation.
Detecting ribbons by selecting a connected surface of the square smooth surfaces having a width is further recitation of mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein, for each of the one or more detected smooth surfaces, an angle between each two connected faces is larger than or equal to 150 degrees and smaller than or equal to 210 degrees.
An evaluation of the angle being between 150 and 210 degrees is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical value.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method further comprises, for each obtained partition, computing one or more traces, a trace being a set of one or more edges residing on a face of the obtained partition, each of the one or more edges created as a result of partitioning.
Computing traces corresponding with sets of edges on a face of the partition is a mathematical operation selecting a subset with respective mathematical properties of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume comprises, for each obtained partition:
determining a start surface and a target surface, each of the start surface and the target surface being neighbor to a ranked ribbon;
determining a sweep path on the ranked ribbon; and
determining that there exists a sweep from the start surface to the target surface along the sweep path, thereby determining the partition represents a sweepable volume.
Determining a start and target surface neighboring a ranked ribbon corresponds to further mathematical evaluation.
Determining a sweep path is further mathematical evaluation.
Determining the existence of a sweep path from the start surface to the target surface is further mathematical evaluation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, for each selected ribbon and after the obtaining two or more partitions, verifying that an angle between each two edges created as results of the partitioning is larger than or equal a to quality angle.
Verifying an angle according to a qualifying angle is a mathematical evaluation of geometry.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
… a computer-implemented method for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part, the method comprising:
…
detecting one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle;
ranking the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons, the one or more geometrical criteria being selected among at least one of: the detected ribbon is a depression, the detected ribbon is a protrusion, the detected ribbon is closed, or the detected ribbon has a revolution; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons:
partitioning the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determining whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume and
for each partition representing a respective sweepable volume tessellating the respective sweepable volume into hexahedral meshes composed of deformed cubes; and
verifying whether the mechanical part represented by a tessellation of the CAD model has a yield stress above a given threshold based on the results of a simulation performed on the hexahedral meshes.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
The geometric shapes of a: depression, protrusion, being “closed,” and having a revolution are mathematical geometric characteristics. Evaluating these geometrical criteria is further recitation of mathematical operation.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
Tessellating sweepable volumes into a hexahedral mesh is a mathematical geometric operation comprising further mathematical subject matter.
Verifying whether a mechanical part represented by the tessellated CAD model has a yield stress above a threshold is mathematical comparison of respective numerical values.
Performing a simulation to determine a numerical yield stress for a tessellated CAD model is an evaluation, judgment, or opinion based on performing respective mathematical calculations. Performing additional mathematical calculations is further recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement …
obtaining a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model;
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g). A volumetric B-rep is itself a mathematically defined data structure.
The computer-readable storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) are analyzed the same in step 2B as in step 2A(ii) above.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. A system comprising:
… for partitioning a computer-aided design (CAD) 3D model of a mechanical part
…
detect one or more ribbons of the volumetric B-Rep, each ribbon including one or more connected faces of the volumetric B-Rep and being, when unfolded, homeomorphic with a rectangle,
rank the one or more detected ribbons based on one or more geometrical criteria that are associated with each of the one or more detected ribbons, the one or more geometrical criteria being selected among at least one of: the detected ribbon is a depression, the detected ribbon is a protrusion, the detected ribbon is closed, or the detected ribbon has a revolution; and
selecting successively each of the ranked one or more detected ribbons, the selection being made following the ranking, and for each selected ribbons, the processor being configured to:
partition the volumetric B-Rep of CAD 3D model using a splitting method associated with the geometrical criteria of the selected ribbon, thereby obtaining two or more partitions, and
for each obtained partition, determine whether or not the partition represents a sweepable volume and
for each partition representing a respective sweepable volume tessellating the respective sweepable volume into hexahedral meshes composed of deformed cubes; and
verifying whether the mechanical part represented by a tessellation of the CAD model has a yield stress above a given threshold based on the results of a simulation performed on the hexahedral meshes.
Partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical operation. Overall, an algorithm for partitioning a geometric shape is a mathematical algorithm.
Detecting ribbons with connected faces homeomorphic with a rectangle is a mathematical evaluation of the mathematical condition of being “homeomorphic with a rectangle.” Note, Specification page 15 lines 24-27 specifically identifies being homeomorphic with a rectangle as within “the field of topology.” Topology is a subfield within mathematics.
Ranking geometric criteria is explicitly mathematical within the field of geometry and by comparison of respective mathematical condition.
The geometric shapes of a: depression, protrusion, being “closed,” and having a revolution are mathematical geometric characteristics. Evaluating these geometrical criteria is further recitation of mathematical operation.
Partitioning the volumetric B-Rep CAD 3D model using a splitting method and geometrical criteria is an explicit invocation of mathematical methods. This splitting method partitioning is a data transformation. However, “[f]or data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).” MPEP §2106.05.
Determining whether or not the partition is “sweepable” is a determination of another mathematical criteria. See also Spec. page 7 lines 8-10 defining “a sweepable volume.”
Tessellating sweepable volumes into a hexahedral mesh is a mathematical geometric operation comprising further mathematical subject matter.
Verifying whether a mechanical part represented by the tessellated CAD model has a yield stress above a threshold is mathematical comparison of respective numerical values.
Performing a simulation to determine a numerical yield stress for a tessellated CAD model is an evaluation, judgment, or opinion based on performing respective mathematical calculations. Performing additional mathematical calculations is further recitation of mathematical subject matter.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
a processor coupled to a memory and a graphical user interface, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program … that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to:
obtain a volumetric B-Rep of the CAD 3D model,
Obtaining a volumetric B-rep of the model is a generic recitation of data gathering for necessary data input. See MPEP §2106.05(g). A volumetric B-rep is itself a mathematically defined data structure.
The processor, memory, GUI is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) are analyzed the same in step 2B as in step 2A(ii) above.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter was previously presented in the office action dated 8 April 2026.
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 Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 17 August 2026
Prosecution Insights