DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 16 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 - 16 are currently amended.
This Office Action is in response to the amendments dated 04/10/2026.
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: “The Office Action's characterization that the steps could be performed ‘in the mind’ is inapplicable here. One cannot mentally generate instructions for a winding machine, nor can one mentally control physical winding equipment. The claimed method solves a concrete technological problem: designing a stable, uniformly covered pattern for elliptical-section elbow pipes that prevents fiber slip during winding - a problem that arises specifically in the context of non-axisymmetric mandrel geometries” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the recited step “generating control instructions” cannot be performed mentally. Examiner notes that “instructions” are intangible under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and neither the claim not the disclosure provide for additional details at all regarding the structure or format of the control instructions. Looking to the claim, it recites that the control instructions are for “defining a filament winding pattern according to the geodesic trajectory”. Therefore, the recited control instructions are merely functionally limited by the filament winding pattern they define.
Applicant argues: “The method does not merely recite an abstract idea with an instruction to "apply it." Rather, it recites a specific, integrated process that:
1) acquires real-world mandrel parameter data;
2) generates control instructions (defining a filament winding pattern) based on that data using geodesic and non-geodesic models with a slip coefficient; and
3) controls a physical winding machine equipment based on those control instructions to wind yarns on the mandrel.
The "controlling" step is not an afterthought - it is the culmination of the claimed method, demonstrating that the generated control instructions are used to physically operate manufacturing equipment. This is the quintessential integration of any judicial exception into a practical application.” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues the combination of the “generating control instructions” and “controlling, by a processor, a winding machine equipment to wind the yarns on a surface of the mandrel based on the control instructions” amounts to a practical application, and does not amount to reciting the words “apply it”. As previously argued, the “generating control instructions” reasonably encompass performance in the mind. The “controlling, by a processor, a winding machine equipment to” is merely “based on the control instructions” to achieve a desired functional result (i.e., “wind the yarns on a surface of the mandrel”). Since there are no further recited details on how the functional result is accomplished beyond that they are based on the control instructions, the limitation amounts to reciting the words “apply it”.
Applicant argues: “The ordered combination of steps in claim 1 amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception:
1) acquiring …
2) constructing a mandrel geometric model …
3) determining …
4) determining …
5) generating control instructions …
6) controlling, by a processor, a winding machine equipment to …
This combination is not conventional or routine. The use of a slip coefficient to conditionally adjust physical parameters to prevent fiber slip on an elliptical-section elbow pipe is a specific solution to a problem unique to manufacturing non axisymmetric composite structures. The claim therefore recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites limitations that are “not conventional or routine” and comprise “a specific solution to a problem unique to manufacturing non axisymmetric composite structures”. Examiner notes that the novelty or non-obviousness of the abstract idea limitations does not transform claimed invention to eligible subject matter (i.e., the “constructing” and “determining”). The additional elements cover well-understood, routine and conventional activity, or amount to reciting the words “apply it” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101). Further, limiting the claimed invention to a field of use (i.e., manufacturing non axisymmetric composite structures) does not amount to significantly more.
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 the 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, comprising: constructing a mandrel geometric model according to the geometric dimension parameters; wherein 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; and the cylindrical segment is an elliptical section pipe; determining a 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; wherein 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; and 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; wherein 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; and the non-geodesic trajectory information of the cylindrical segment comprises: a fiber path winding angle and a fiber path center rotation angle; and generating control instructions defining 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; wherein a method for determining the geodesic trajectory information of the ring segment comprises: determining the bending angle according to the initial winding angle; wherein 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; wherein 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 the 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 “generating control instructions” 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; controlling, by a processor, a winding machine equipment, to wind the yarns on a surface of the mandrel based on the control instructions. 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 “controlling, by a processor, a winding machine equipment” 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
699
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
PNG
media_image2.png
96
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
223
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4
PNG
media_image4.png
359
616
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights