DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 26, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on January 26, 2023, February 16, 2024, March 28, 2024, May 8, 2024, May 17, 2024, and May 27, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 1 and 11 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention . The term proximate in claim s 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term proximate is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this term to mean encompassing each of the eight cube corners . 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is d irected toward a method , claim 11 is directed toward a system, and claim 16 is directed toward a n apparatus . Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 11, and 16 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1. Under Step 2A , Prong 1 , the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, t he independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. The l anguage of independent claim 1 is used for illustration: A method of generating a panel infill geometry of a sandwich panel (generating a panel infill geometry of a sandwich panel is considered a mental process) , comprising: providing a driver mesh representing a panel mid-surface of a sandwich panel, the driver mesh is comprised of a plurality of quadrilateral elements (a person may mentally visualize this type of driver mesh) ; providing a reference unit cell mesh having a unit cell geometry configured to fit exactly within a unit cube having a cube center and 8 cube corners, the reference unit cell mesh is comprised of a unit infill mesh and a pair of unit face sheet meshes at opposite ends of the unit infill mesh (a person may mentally visualize this type of reference unit cell mesh) , wherein the unit cell geometry comprises: a hollow three-dimensional center portion, centered on the cube center, and closed except for 8 openings respectively located proximate the 8 cube corners (a person may mentally visualize this cubic structure) ; and mapping a plurality of the reference unit cell meshes respectively onto a plurality of hexahedral elements respectively associated with the plurality of quadrilateral elements, through the use of basis functions defined on each of the plurality of quadrilateral elements in a manner causing adjustment of the size and shape of the plurality of reference unit cell meshes to conform respectively to the plurality of hexahedral elements, and resulting in a plurality of mapped unit cell meshes collectively forming a panel infill mesh having a panel infill geometry interconnecting a pair of face sheet meshes (a person may mentally map the previously mentally generated aspects. The basis functions are considered mathematical concepts) . As explained above , independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea . The other independent claim 11 , which is of similar scope to claim 1 , likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, the ment al processes/certain methods of organizing human activity/mathematical concepts judi cial exception is /are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claim 11 recite s the additional elements of a processor… , and a memory device… . These limitations amou nt to implementing the abstract idea on a computer; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. B ecause the additional elements , do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea , independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract i dea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to am ount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 11 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15 , when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-15 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-15 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner notes that independent claim 16 claims the sandwich panel itself and is, therefore, not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner encourages Applicant to request an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-15 are allowable over the prior art and may be found allowable after the above rejections have been remedied . Additionally, claims 16-20 are allowed. Examiner notes that prior art showing the particularly claimed sandwich panel infill geometry has not been found. The closest prior art not already of record includes U.S. Pub. No. 2020//0272131 which relates to the modeling, constructing, and designing of cellular geometric structures mapped into a global mesh having similar structures to the claimed structure. However, the structures are not found to be the same or obvious variants thereof. A more thorough reasons for allowability will be provided at the time of allowance of all pending claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6575 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Erin Bishop can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3713 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT TIFFANY YOUNG Primary Examiner Art Unit 3666 /TIFFANY P YOUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665