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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 16 have been presented for examination. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Although some commercially available software (such as CANWIND software) can realize the pattern design of elliptical section elbow pipe, due to the confidentiality requirements, its specific method is not reported in public. Therefore, it is very important to design a uniformly covered and stable pattern suitable for the winding of the elliptical section elbow pipe, to improve the forming quality and manufacturing efficiency of composite elbow pipes with filament winding, so as to facilitate the filament winding design and manufacturing of complex products with high added value, and to expand the application field of filament winding technology”
Applicant appears to argue that the claimed invention as reduced to practice in software did not exist prior to the date of invention. Examiner notes that merely implementing an abstract using general purpose computer elements does not take away from the recitation of the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong I. Further, the novelty or non-obviousness of the steps does not transform the claimed invention into eligible subject matter.
Applicant further argues that a manufacturing efficiency is improved/facilitated. Examiner notes that the recited “manufacturing the segments of composite elbow pipe according to the determined pattern” amounts to reciting the words “apply” since it merely recites the idea of an outcome in combination with the results of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues: “With the steps of acquiring parameter data of a mandrel of a target elbow pipe, the claim provides a method that can realize the pattern design of elliptical section elbow pipe, has better adaptability, may automatically design and obtain the pattern design of elliptical section elbow pipe, which is helpful to prepare and product the elliptical section elbow pipe wounded by yarns, and has high computation accuracy” (emphasis added)
Examiner notes that the “acquiring” is an additional element and amounts to insignificant data gathering, and covers no more than well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Further, “automatically” is not explicitly recited (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Further, the “high computation accuracy” is related to the resulting design itself which is wholly part of the abstract idea and does not preclude performance in the mind.
Applicant argues: “Claim 5 further defines that the method is performed by computer device. Therefore, the method for pattern design in filament winding is a computer implemented method using acquired parameter data of the mandrel of the target elbow pipe. The method solves the problem in the field of pattern design.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
Applicant argues: “First, claim 1 recites an improvement to the field of manufacturing composite elbow pipes, which is a specific area of application of the calculations and computations set forth in the claim. The claim is not a general abstract instruction, accompanied by an instruction to 'apply it'. The claim is limited to manufacture of specific products by the specific designs set forth in the claimed method.
Paragraph [0005] of the specification of the present disclosure recites … That is, the present disclosure has considered in advance that there is almost no published and useful manner … In order to solve the above issues in the prior art, claim 1 of the present disclosure proposes a method for pattern design in filament winding … That is, different from the existing manner that the commercially available software is used to realize the pattern design of … Second, according to MPEP § 2106.04(d), limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element ( or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: Applying or using the judicial exception in … For example, the method of claim 1 includes winding, by a winding machine equipment, the yarns on a surface of the mandrel according to the filament winding pattern … the pattern design of elliptical section elbow pipe can be realized such that the commercially available software used for pattern design is not needed, and adaptability is better.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is an improvement to manufacturing composite elbow pipes by citing to the disclosure. However, as previously argued by Applicant, the invention addresses the absence of the design method itself in the public domain (see Applicant’s arguments above “Although some commercially available software (such as CANWIND software) can realize the pattern design of elliptical section elbow pipe, due to the confidentiality requirements, its specific method is not reported in public”). Although the design is specific to composite elbow pipes, the manufacturing requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity merely to tangibly realize the previously determined pattern. Therefore, said manufacturing does not further limit the abstract idea to any specific area/product, and does not amount to an improvement in the field of manufacturing the previously determined pattern.
Applicant further argues that the “winding, by a winding equipment” results in tangibly realizing the pattern design. Examiner notes that the “winding, by a winding machine equipment” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it uses ordinary equipment operating in their ordinary capacity to apply the pattern design of the abstract idea. Further, Applicant’s argues that the claimed invention obviates the need for the commercially available software, however, it was previously argued that no commercially available software exists that can perform the claimed invention steps.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, the method of the claims is a computer implemented method using the parameter data of the mandrel acquired from actual elliptical section elbow pipe. This computer implemented method may automatically realize the pattern design of the actual elliptical section elbow pipe without using the commercially available software.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 is limited to manufacturing via a very specific manufacturing plan: the claim sets forth that the parameter data of the mandrel of the actual elbow pipe is acquired, and the parameter data includes geometric dimension parameters… For example, these additional elements are applied in combination with the steps of constructing a mandrel geometric model according to …”
Applicant argues the additional elements of “acquiring” amounts to a specific resulting manufacturing plan, apparently in regards to “constructing a mandrel geometric model” which is specific to the parameters acquired. Examiner that the “acquiring” is specific merely with regard to the type of parameters that are acquired, which amounts to insignificant data gathering since the manner in which they are acquired is recited at a high-level of generality covering well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Further, the “constructing” is merely of a non-tangible “model”, being wholly part of the abstract idea. Further, the “manufacturing” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”.
Applicant argues: “When the parameter data of the mandrel of the target elbow pipe is acquired, the additional elements in combination with above steps provide a computer implemented method for realizing pattern design of the actual elliptical section elbow pipe, thereby realizing winding of the mandrel of the actual elliptical section elbow pipe using the yarns, and then realizing preparation and production of the wound elliptical section elbow pipe. Furthermore, the method of the claims does not rely on the commercially available software.”
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive based on the preceding remarks.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcome the 101 rejections.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and claim 2 – 16 by incorporation) method comprising: “determining a length of transition segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient; judging whether the set slip coefficient satisfies a set requirement according to the length of the transition segment and a length of the cylindrical segment; when the length of the transition segment is greater than the length of the cylindrical segment, increasing the length of the cylindrical segment or changing the set slip coefficient within a set range to obtain modification information; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the modification information; when the length of the transition segment is less than or equal to the length of the cylindrical segment, determining the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model”, 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.
Eustace, S. “Process Model for 2D Braiding of Elliptical Cross-section Preforms” teaches for a cylindrical mandrel, as the mandrel size is increased (and no other process parameters are changed) with longer shape,however if the perimeter of the mandrel of Shape A is doubled, then the length of strand is approximately doubled, as shown in Figure 6-10. However, does not teach determining a length of transition segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient; judging whether the set slip coefficient satisfies a set requirement according to the length of the transition segment and a length of the cylindrical segment; when the length of the transition segment is greater than the length of the cylindrical segment, increasing the length of the cylindrical segment or changing the set slip coefficient within a set range to obtain modification information; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the modification information; when the length of the transition segment is less than or equal to the length of the cylindrical segment, determining the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model.
Man et al. “Filament winding pattern generation for non-axisymmetric mandrels based on uniform quadrilateral elements” teaches adding or removing transitional sections, and maximum slip coefficient. However, does not teach determining a length of transition segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient; judging whether the set slip coefficient satisfies a set requirement according to the length of the transition segment and a length of the cylindrical segment; when the length of the transition segment is greater than the length of the cylindrical segment, increasing the length of the cylindrical segment or changing the set slip coefficient within a set range to obtain modification information; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the modification information; when the length of the transition segment is less than or equal to the length of the cylindrical segment, determining the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model.
Zhang et al. “Design of filament-wound composite elbows based on non-geodesic trajectories” teaches a maximum slip coefficient based on the frictional coefficient. However, does not teach determining a length of transition segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient; judging whether the set slip coefficient satisfies a set requirement according to the length of the transition segment and a length of the cylindrical segment; when the length of the transition segment is greater than the length of the cylindrical segment, increasing the length of the cylindrical segment or changing the set slip coefficient within a set range to obtain modification information; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the modification information; when the length of the transition segment is less than or equal to the length of the cylindrical segment, determining the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model.
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 § 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 – 16 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.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for pattern design in filament winding pattern design of composite elbow pipes, wherein the method comprises: constructing a mandrel geometric model according to the geometric dimension parameters; the mandrel geometric model comprises a geodesic mathematical model of a ring segment of the target elbow pipe and a non-geodesic mathematical model of a cylindrical segment of the target elbow pipe; the ring segment is an elliptical section annular elbow pipe; the cylindrical segment is an elliptical section pipe; determining number of yarns of the ring segment according to the geodesic mathematical model and set parameter data, and determining geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment; the set parameter data comprises: an initial winding angle of each of the yarns when it is wound from the ring segment of the target elbow pipe and a yarn width of each of the yarns; the geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment comprises: a winding angle and a center rotation angle; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and a set slip coefficient; the set slip coefficient is related to the yarns and the mandrel or ply and is used to avoid a slip phenomenon in a filament winding process; the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment comprises: a fiber path winding angle and a fiber path center rotation angle; and determining a filament winding pattern according to the geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment and the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment by using a continued fraction configured for determining the filament winding pattern; a method for determining the geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment comprises: determining a bending angle according to the initial winding angle; the bending angle is an angle spanned by a geodesic within a set period of the center rotation angle; determining the number of yarns corresponding to an outer arc of a set period according to the bending angle and the yarn width; determining path information about each yarn according to the geodesic mathematical model and set parameter data; and determining the geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment according to all path information; the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment is determined according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient, comprising: determining a length of transition segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the set slip coefficient; judging whether the set slip coefficient satisfies a set requirement according to the length of the transition segment and a length of the cylindrical segment; when the length of the transition segment is greater than the length of the cylindrical segment, increasing the length of the cylindrical segment or changing the set slip coefficient within a set range to obtain modification information; determining non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model and the modification information; when the length of the transition segment is less than or equal to the length of the cylindrical segment, determining the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment according to the non-geodesic mathematical model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, 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 “constructing” and “increasing” and “changing” amounts to step to create a model and/or modify a model requiring no more than mental judgement or evaluations. The “determining” and “judging” encompass further modeling steps requiring no more than mental judgement or evaluations. 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: acquiring parameter data of a mandrel of a target elbow pipe; wherein the parameter data comprises: geometric dimension parameters, which comprises: a bending radius, a bending angle, an elliptical long semi-axis, and an elliptical short semi-axis of the mandrel, and a cylindrical length at both sides of the target elbow pipe; winding, by a winding machine equipment, the yarns on a surface of the mandrel according to the filament winding pattern; manufacturing the segments of composite elbow pipe according to the determined pattern. The “acquiring” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the remaining steps rely on the acquired elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “winding, by a winding machine equipment” and “manufacturing” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since it uses ordinary equipment operating in their ordinary capacity to apply the pattern design of the abstract idea. 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 “acquiring” is recited at a high-level of generality and reasonably encompasses using any electronic means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”). The “winding, by a winding machine equipment” and “manufacturing” amount to reciting the words “apply it” since it uses ordinary equipment operating in their ordinary capacity to apply the pattern design of the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 4 (and similarly 8- 16) recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 2
PNG
media_image1.png
695
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
PNG
media_image2.png
155
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
167
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
PNG
media_image4.png
376
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At Step 2A, Prong I 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 claims 2 – 4 recite performing parent claims steps using specific math equations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 recite(s) at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) to implement the steps of the method for the pattern design in filament winding according to claim 1. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) 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. With regard to the steps of claim 1, they are not integrated into a practical application for the same reasons as in claim 1. The claimed invention further claims: a computer device, comprising: memory, a processor, and computer instructions stored on the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer instructions. The “memory” and “processor” 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.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to the steps of claim 1, do 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. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “memory” and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “acquiring” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recite(s) at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) wherein the steps of the method for the pattern design in filament winding according to claim 1 are implemented. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) 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. With regard to the steps of claim 1, they are not integrated into a practical application for the same reasons as in claim 1. The claimed invention further claims: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, wherein the steps are implemented when the computer program is executed by a processor. The “processor” 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to the steps of claim 1, do 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. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “acquiring” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 recite(s) at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) wherein the steps of the method for the pattern design in filament winding according to claim 1 are implemented. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) 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. With regard to the steps of claim 1, they are not integrated into a practical application for the same reasons as in claim 1. The claimed invention further claims: a non-transitory computer program product, comprising a computer program, wherein the steps of the method for the pattern design in filament winding according to claim 1 are implemented when the computer program is executed by a processor. The “computer program” and “processor” 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.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to the steps of claim 1, do 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. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer program” and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “acquiring” requires 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. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187