DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 17 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 10 are currently amended. Claim 17 is new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Initially, Applicant respectfully submits that the previous arguments continue to apply”
With regard to previous arguments presented by Applicant and responded to by the Office, they are not persuasive based on the previous responses.
Applicant argues: "In order to determine whether the claim is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process, it must be considered whether the claim can be performed mentally. Thus, if the claim when considered as a whole cannot be performed in the human mind, then the claim cannot be considered abstract under prong 1 as a mental process. "
Applicant cites to the August 2025 memorandum that a "claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind" and apparently that the claim must be considered "as a whole" at Step 2A, Prong I. The memorandum clearly states that limitations are analyzed individually (see the memorandum Page 2 "a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind"). Further, the memorandum clearly explains the "as a whole" analysis is performed at Step 2A, Prong II with regard to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant is applying Prong II considerations to the Prong I analysis since Prong I merely requires that the claim recite limitations that that comprise one or more abstract ideas.
Applicant argues: "it is not reasonable to assert that a human mind can determine one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value"
Applicant provides a conclusory argument that the one or more limitations cannot reasonably be performed in the mind in combination with a piece of paper. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 is directed to: "a computer-implemented method. for vehicle impact analysis included in a manufacturing process .... the method further comprises generating three dimensional data of at least one part of the vehicle based on the determining of the one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Repfor the radius value and outputting the three dimensional data for use in a manufacturing process. " Thus, Claim 1 as a whole is directed to the practical application of improving safety by performing vehicle impact analysis included in a manufacturing process. As such, outputting the three-dimensional data for use in a manufacturing process goes beyond a mere abstract idea, as it is linked to the practical application of using the data in a manufacturing process for improving safety standards for pedestrians in a vehicle” (italicized emphasis in original) (bolded emphasis added)
Examiner notes that recitation in the preamble “in a manufacturing process” is not further relied upon in the body of the claim, since the claim further recites “outputting the three-dimensional data for use in a manufacturing process”. Therefore, the claimed link between the abstract idea and any manufacturing process merely covers intended use. Further, the claim merely recites “improving safety of the vehicle by modifying a design”, therefore, the improvement is wholly within an aspect of an intangible design. Further, the claim does not recite an improvement in any “safety standards” such as those commonly used in the automobile industry since it appears said existing standards would merely be met (i.e., see proposed amended “until reaching a safety goal”).
Applicant argues: “In other words, the contact sphere and the one or more two-point-contact curves have real world considerations which are directed to safety standards for pedestrians: the contact sphere models the impact of the head or knee of a pedestrian or passenger, and thus takes into account physical considerations of the head or knee as it impacts the vehicle, while the two-point contact curves provide relevant regions where collisions on the vehicle happen. That is, the contact sphere and the two-point contact curves go beyond an abstract idea at least by the fact that these take into account physical considerations for improving the safety standards of a vehicle to be manufactured.
Thus, the aforementioned features are also directed the practical application of to improving the manufacturing of a vehicle so that it meets safety standards for pedestrians. In other words, even assuming arguendo that the claims were held to be directed to an abstract idea, they would still be eligible because the present claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, namely of improving safety standards for pedestrians in a vehicle.”
Examiner notes that the claim merely recites "improving safety of the vehicle by modifying a design", therefore, the improvement is wholly within an aspect of an intangible design. Looking to the disclosure, the problem being overcome is related to "a need for improved solutions for vehicle impact analysis" (see the instant application Page 3, Lines 16 - 17). Further, the claim does not recite an improvement in any “safety standards” such as those commonly used in the automobile industry since it appears said existing standards would merely be met (i.e., see proposed amended “until reaching a safety goal”).
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that the update is performed in accordance with the determination of the two-point contact curves. Thus, the edit objectively enables an improvement of safety of the vehicle, as the edit received is more than a mental process step, but rather a modification based on safety standards in accordance with the determined two-point contact curves, which model the impact of a real-world accident … Indeed, the edit comprises smoothening the outer surface at locations of one or more determined two-point-contact curves. Thus, the edit corrects safety hazard zones where impact can occur. This process is performed iteratively, until reaching a safety goal. That is, the final outer surface is objectively linked to the determination of the two-point contact curves representing a real-world impact and the iterative receiving of the edit until reaching the safety goal.” (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that the recited “receiving an edit” is insignificant data gathering, and the recited “updating” merely effectuates the more specific edit recited in the instant claims. Although the instant claims further recite iteratively performing steps comprising the received edit until reaching a safety goal, the recited edit and/or safety goal is not limited to based on a safety standard, or improving safety of the vehicle, or correcting safety hazard zones, as argued by Applicant. Further, the edit itself is performed by a user and later used to at a high-level of generality to update the three dimensional data. However, the problem being overcome is the analysis of impact analysis itself (i.e., the determining the two-point-contact curves and/or the edit performed by user including smoothening), and not the later updating of the vehicle design based on the results of the impact analysis (see the instant application Page 3, Lines 16 – 17 “Within this context, there is still a need for improved solutions for vehicle impact analysis.”). Further, merely repeating insignificant data gathering/outputting steps, or steps amounts to reciting the words “apply it” does not amount to significantly more since each iteration linearly builds on the previous iteration in a predictable manner. Examiner notes that the iterating does not explicitly recite the that “updating” is also part of the iterations.
Applicant argues: “Thus, all of the features of the claimed invention are directed to the technical application of ensuring safety standards in the design of the vehicle”
Examiner notes that limiting the claimed invention to a technical field does not amount to a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues: “In response, Applicant submits that the argument is not "conclusory." Instead, the Argument is well formulated and supported by discussion of how one of ordinary skill in the art would never consider the claimed features to be simple enough to be performed entirely in the human mind. This is an objective reality that no human can reasonably "determine one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value" or "generate three dimensional data of at least one part of the vehicle" or "display, in real time, the contact sphere at the new position and results of the determining of the one or more two-point contact curves." These features cannot reasonably be considered as "mental processes." … In the present case, it is clear that the human mind is not equipped to perform these features”
Applicant asserts that their previous argument about the recited “determine one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value” not being reasonably performed in the mind is “well formulated and supported by discussion”. Examiner notes that the previous arguments do not in any way support and/or discuss how one of ordinary skill in the art would never consider the claimed features to be simple enough to be performed entirely in the human mind (see Arguments dated 06/01/2026 “However, in the present case, the claims cannot be performed in the human mind and the computer is not necessary. For instance, it is not reasonable to assert that a human mind can determine one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value”). The instant arguments are similarly conclusory since they merely assert that this is an “objective reality” with regard to one or more of the recite limitations, and without providing any further support and/or discussion regarding this assertion.
Applicant argues: “In response, Applicant submits that the improvement is not "wholly within an aspect of intangible design." The claim is not directed to improving how the design "looks" or "feels." Instead, the claim is directed to a system that allows the manufacturing process to be improved using vehicle impact analysis and in particular objective safety standards for pedestrians that are impacted by a vehicle”
Examiner notes that a vehicle design can include all aspects of the vehicle beyond merely the aesthetic “looks” or how it “feels”, and that such a narrow interpretation of the “intangible design” was never argued or alleged by the Office. Indeed, the claim is directed to improving a vehicle design which has a manufacturing process recited as intended use. Therefore, the manufacturing process itself is not limited or improved in any way since the claim does not require the vehicle to be manufactured. Further, the problem being overcome is wholly related to the design itself with regard to existing safety standards for vehicles prior to serial production (see the instant application Page 3, Lines 16 – 17 and Page 2, Lines 12 – 15 “In this context, automotive companies have to comply with certain specifications and/or provisions. Examples of such provisions are set in the EU and the US by the following regulations: … These specifications have to be checked thoroughly within the design process of each new vehicle and are subject to a control process by the respective authorities, before the vehicle is approved for serial production”).
Applicant argues: “Applicant notes that the edit is performed on the three dimensional data. This is not recited at a high-level of generality and certainly is precluded from being wholly determined in the mind of the user. This is the case, at least, because the claim explicitly requires the generated three dimensional data be updated based on the edit. Such an updating of three to dimensional data cannot be performed in the mind of a user.”
Applicant argues that the edit being performed in three-dimensional data is not recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the edit is determined, and that it is precluded from being wholly determined in the mind of the user at least since the three-dimensional data is later updated based on the edit. Examiner notes that the edit being performed by the user on three-dimensional data does not in any way further specify how the edit is determined. Further, the three-dimensional data itself is not precluded from being observed by a user, and then determined in the mind of said user. Further, it is not clear how later updating three-dimensional data based on the received edit materially changes how the edit is previously received and/or precludes it from being wholly determined in the mind of the user. Further, the “updating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”.
Applicant argues: “D) Finally, Applicant wishes to emphasize that the contact sphere is displayed and the receiving of the edit is performed iteratively until reaching a safety goal for the vehicle. That is, there is a display of the contact sphere while the edit is done, so that the final outer surface is objectively linked to the determination of the two-point contact curves representing a real world impact and the iterative receiving of the edit until reaching the safety goal. In other words, the displaying of the contact sphere over the vehicle provides the user with an objective indicator for assessing the improvement of safety of the vehicle, thus providing an ergonomic advantage.
The display together with the ergonomic advantage of the limitation render the features of the claim to be directed to the technical application of ensuring safety standards in the design of the vehicle.”
Examiner notes that the “displaying” amounts to insignificant data outputting, and covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Although the displaying is “for a user to perform visual inspection functionality” and “thereby enabling a visual inspection functionality”, the claim explicitly recites that a user is performing the analysis using the results of the claimed invention of the tool. Therefore, the “displaying” and “receiving an edit performed by the user” weigh towards data outputting of the abstract idea results for presenting to a user performing the vehicle impact analysis itself, in combination with gathering steps of the user performed edits.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 and 112(b) rejection.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 10; and claims 2 – 7, 9, 11 – 17 by incorporation via dependency) computer-implemented method for vehicle impact analysis in a manufacturing process, the method comprising: “wherein the method further comprises, at each numeric integration step, testing condition (I) that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the testing including intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep, the local sphere having a radius similar in size to the radius R but smaller than R” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112), in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Miyata et al. (US 2011/0295576) teaches computing closest distance from spatial curve to boundary surface of a boundary representation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Sacchi, R. “Primitive-based segmentation for triangulated surfaces” teaches accurate determination of intersection curves where two adjacent segments meet. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Macklin et al. (US 2022/0075914) teaches methods of contact for simulation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
“Regulation No. 26 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) – Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regards to their External Projections” teaches using a 100 mm diameter circle to check surfaces. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Quilot et al. (US 2014/0184599) teaches tessellating a boundary representation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying contact vertices, and defining transitions bounded by contact vertices, and setting starring points for a root-finding algorithm based on the transition edges.
Inui et al. “Visualizing sphere-contacting areas on automobile parts for ECE inspection” teaches some areas could make contact on a tessellated part, where it is implicit that others would not make contact. However does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying contact vertices, and defining transitions bounded by contact vertices, and setting starring points for a root-finding algorithm based on the transition edges.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 17 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.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 10), it recites “having a radius similar in size to the radius R but smaller than R”. The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” 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. Looking to the disclosure, there is a disclosed embodiment of the "local sphere may be of a radius higher than 0.9*R" which would translate to a lower boundary within 10 percent or (1 -1/10)*R (see the instant application Page 22, Lines 6 - 8). Examiner notes that the disclosure of embodiments does not amount to a special definition, therefore, it does not specifically limit the recited “similar” to a precise range. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as no more than 10% smaller to cover the disclosed embodiments. Further, this appears to match the intent of the original recitation in the parent application since “an order of” relates to the number 10 (see 17/367285 claim 6, dated 07/02/2021 “having a radius of an order of R but smaller than R”).
With regard to claims 2 – 7 and 9 and 11 – 17, they are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected parent claim, and since they do not recite limitations to overcome the unclarity.
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 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1, independent claim 1 recites a statutory category (i.e. a process) computer-implemented method for vehicle impact analysis in a manufacturing process. At Step 2A, Prong I, the method comprising: determining one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value, each two-point-contact curve being a curve lying on the B-Rep and representing a sequence of two-point contacts between the outer surface and a two-point contact sphere having the radius value, the one or more two-point-contact curves thereby representing two-point-contact impacts on the vehicle, the determining including, for each respective two-point-contact curve, solving a first respective differential equation based on the B-Rep, the first respective differential equation being based on a respective pair of surface parameterizations, wherein the first respective differential equation is:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
321
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value, wherein the integrating comprises successive numeric integration steps each yielding a respective segment portion of the respective two-point-contact curve, until one of the two following conditions is evaluated to be fulfilled: (I) the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, and (II) a face boundary is reached, wherein the method comprises, at each numeric integration step, testing condition (I) that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the testing including intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep, the local sphere having a radius similar in size to the radius R but smaller than R; wherein the method further comprises generating three dimensional data of at least one part of the vehicle based on the determining of the one or more two- point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining” and “solving” involves solving differential equations to curves having a geometrical relationship with a B-rep, and reciting what the curves and the sphere represents does not in any way change their mathematical character. The “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. The “successive numeric integration steps” amounts to generating segments of a curve. The “intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep” amounts to a geometrical operation related to generation of the curve segments. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “generating three dimensional data” recites at a high-level of generality how the data is generated apart from representing a vehicle part, and where it is noted that 3D data is not limited to CAD models since a 3D object could be described on a piece of paper (e.g., using 3D vectors and/or 3x3 matrices). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; obtaining a B-Rep representing an outer surface of a vehicle, the B-Rep having faces, each face of the B-Rep being supported by a respective surface parameterization; obtaining a radius value for a contact sphere modelling the impact of a head or knee of a pedestrian or passenger on the vehicle; that the “determining” is on one or more processors; wherein the method further comprises outputting the three dimensional data for use in a manufacturing process; wherein the method further comprises: displaying a contact sphere with the radius value and contacting a graphical representation of the outer surface for a user to perform visual inspection functionality; obtaining a new position for the contact sphere along the graphical representation of the outer surface; displaying, in real time, the contact sphere at the new position and results of the detem1ining of the one or more two-point-contact curves to provide a visualization to the user, thereby enabling a visual inspection functionality; receiving an edit performed by the user on the three dimensional data; and updating the generated three dimensional data based on the edit, the edit including smoothening the outer surface at locations of one or more determined two-point-contact curves. wherein the obtaining, the displaying of the contact sphere, and the receiving of the edit are performed iteratively until reaching a safety goal for the vehicle, thereby improving safety of the vehicle by modifying a design based on the obtained results. The “computer-implemented” and “processors” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “obtaining” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is obtained, and since the “determining” and “determining” and “updating” steps rely on the received elements merely as inputs (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “outputting the three dimensional data” and “displaying” amount to insignificant data outputting since it recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted. The “updating” steps amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it merely effectuates the received edit which is wholly determined by a user. The “are performed iteratively” amounts to no more than repetition of insignificant data gathering and outputting since the repetitions are the same steps but for being performed conditionally according to any desired safety goal. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the recited “obtaining” and “receiving” and “outputting the three-dimensional data” and “displaying” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it encompasses any means of obtaining or outputting the data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “updating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The “are performed iteratively” amounts to no more than repetition of well-understood, routine, and conventional steps. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “receiving” and “outputting the three dimensional data” and “displaying” require no more than generic computer functions. Further, the “obtaining” are data gathering steps which only depend on each other through the recited “vehicle”, and which are both used in the subsequent “determining”. Further, the “displaying” and “receiving” work in combination merely to allow a user to perform observations, judgements, and evaluations for the purpose of performing a edit to a design. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claims 2 – 7 and 17 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s):
Claim 2 wherein, when the condition (I) is fulfilled that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the determining includes further solving a second respective differential equation based on the B-Rep, the second respective differential equation being based on the respective pair of surface parameterizations and further on other surface parameterization (s3) supporting the intersection.
Claim 3 wherein the second respective differential equation is:
PNG
media_image3.png
364
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
269
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes finding a zero (u0, v0, a0, b0) of F, the initial value for integrating the first respective differential equation being given by (u(0), v(0), a(0), b(0)) = (u0, v0, a0, b0) in claim 9.
Claim 5 wherein the finding of the zero includes a root-finding algorithm, on the B-Rep, from a pair of starting points of the B-Rep
Claim 6 tessellating the B-Rep; and processing the tessellation, the processing including: identifying, for the radius value, one-point-contact vertices and noncontact vertices; defining transition edges, each transition edge being bounded by a respective one-point-contact vertex and a respective non-contact vertex; and setting the pair of starting points based on a respective transition edge
Claim 7 wherein the setting includes, iteratively and until the root-finding algorithm finds the zero: selecting a transition edge; establishing a pair of candidate starting points based on the selected transition edge, optionally including bisecting the selected transition edge; and running the root-finding algorithm, on the B-Rep, from the pair of candidate starting points.
Claim 17 wherein the updating the generated three dimensional data based on the edit is performed iteratively by modifying the design displayed in the three dimensional data in response to the edit until the safety goal for the vehicle is reached.
The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “solving” and “second respective differential equation is” involves solving a differential equation based on surface parameterizations and an intersection. The “finding a zero (u0, v0, a0, b0) of F”, and “being given by (u(0), v(0), a(0), b(0)) = (u0, v0, a0, b0)” further limit the parent claim “determining” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. The “root finding algorithm” encompasses any mathematical algorithm for find roots given starting points. The “tessellating the B-Rep” comprises a mathematically constructed shape. For example, the “identifying”, “defining transition edges”, “setting the pair of starting points”, “bisecting the selected transition edge”, and “running the root-finding algorithm” amount to relationships between mathematical elements (i.e. radius, vertices, edge being bounded by a vertex, points). The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting” and “establishing a pair of candidate starting points” amounts to an analytical process reciting at a high-level of generality for analyzing an edge and thereby providing inputs to further mathematical steps. The “modifying the design displayed in the three dimensional data” recites at a high-level of generality how the data is modified apart from conditional performance in response to a received edit, and where it is noted that 3D data is not limited to CAD models since a 3D object could be described on a piece of paper (e.g., using 3D vectors and/or 3x3 matrices). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, independent claim 8 recites a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions for performing a method for vehicle impact analysis.
At Step 2A, Prong I, the method comprising the same steps as claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims additional elements which overlap with claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as in claim 1. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 9 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 9 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value. The recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the parent claim “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, independent claim 10 recites a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for vehicle impact analysis that.
At Step 2A, Prong I, the system configured to perform same steps as in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims additional elements which overlap with claim 1. Claim 10 further recites: a processor coupled with a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for vehicle impact analysis that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to. The “processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1 and as explained above.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those as in claim 1, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 11 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 11 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value. The recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the parent claim “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 12 - 16 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 15 updating the generated three dimensional data based on the editing; Claim 16 wherein the generating three dimensional data includes iterating steps of the computer-implemented method to incrementally generate the three dimensional data. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “updating” covers judgements and evaluations and opinions of received editing resulting in a modified 3D model of an object which could be realized on a piece of paper, where it is noted that 3D model is not limited to CAD models since a 3D object could be described on a piece of paper (e.g., using 3D vectors and/or 3x3 matrices). The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” include one or more steps that cover mathematical concepts as discussed in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 12 displaying results of the determining to provide a visualization to a user; Claim 13 displaying a moving contact sphere for a user to perform visual inspection functionality; Claim 14 interlacing storing and creating a 3D modeled object based on the generated three dimensional data; Claim 15 receiving editing performed by a user on the generated three dimensional data; Claim 16 wherein the generating three dimensional data includes iterating steps of the computer-implemented method to incrementally generate the three dimensional data. The “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the results or contact sphere are displayed, or how the modeled object is stored and created (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to editing data is obtained from the user (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” includes one or more the additional elements, none of which are not integrated into a practical application as discussed as in claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” and “receiving” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it encompasses any means of obtaining or outputting the data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” includes one or more additional elements, none of which amount to significantly more as discussed in claim 1. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” and “receiving” and “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” additional elements from claim 1 require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H B WECHSELBERGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights