DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 Arguments
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Withdrawn.
See allowability section below.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 102 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 102 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: Nastran does teach the limitations of the amended claim, and points to the written analysis of each page set by the Examiner
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees as this argument does not relate to the limitations of the claim. The Examiner has provided a detailed analysis as to why each section teaches the claimed limitation. It has also been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s Argument: The Nastran reference doesn’t teach the transforming limitation.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees and points to the cited sections. First on page 6 of the reference, it is clarified that the cited sections are matrix operations, so Pages 492 and 494 do transform a matrix as required by the claim. The claim then requires the degrees of freedom to be eliminated, which is taught in at least Figures 1-7 and page 30 where degrees of freedom are removed. The claim then requires degrees of freedom for each part of the set of parts, which is taught by Page 255 when the degrees of freedom are changes, as well as 492 and 494 where a degree of freedom is applied to each point based on the single point. Therefore, the Examiner believes the cited section teaches the claimed limitation.
Therefore, the 102 rejection is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 16 and 18-20 recite the element “global reduced stiffness matrix” as recited in the amended claims. When looking at the specification as a whole, adequate support could not be found. Since support for the amended limitation could not be found, the amended limitation is different in scope than the disclosed invention at the time of filing, thus the amended limitation is new matter.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Claim 18 is 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. The limitation
PNG
media_image1.png
20
79
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contains variables that are not defined by the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear as one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the meaning of the equation without knowing what the variables stand for.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MSCNastran2018 “Linear Static Analysis User’s Guide” (hereinafter Nastran).
Regarding claim 1 Nastran anticipates A computer implemented method storing an initial computer implemented finite element (FE) model in a computer aided drafting (CAD) application, wherein the computer implemented FE model comprises a plurality of two dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) parts, and each of the plurality of 2D and/or 3D representative parts comprises a representative plurality of sub-components of the computer implemented FE model; and (Page 21 Nastran is a finite element CAD program; Pages 251-255 that detects low or unconstrained stiffnesses between parts; Pages 78-81, 181, 190 and 644-645, a 2D or 3D element part is used where the body is the part and the sub components are the elements of the part)
detecting an unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between a plurality of the two dimensional (2D) and/or three dimensional (3D) representative parts of the initial computer implemented FE model using a process comprising the steps of: (Pages 447-449, all nodes are checked to see if they are constrained; Pages 251-255 unconstrained nodes or weakly constrained nodes are edited by the user or automatically constrained by the Nastran program)
transforming the initial computer implemented FE model to a reduced system representation; (Page 21 Nastran is a finite element program; Page 28 The global stiffness matrix is reduced to a reduced stiffness matrix)
further comprising steps of: introducing a single representative part node into the computer implemented FE model for each respective part, wherein a set of representative part nodes comprises a single representative node with six degrees of freedom for each of the plurality of 3D representative parts of the initial FE model and a single representative part node three degrees of freedom for each of the plurality of 2D representative parts of the initial FE model representing translational and rotational motion of each representative part; (Pages 251-255, the degrees of freedom can be changed for each representative part node, including a singular node; Pages 43, 169, 332, 345, three dimensional parts have 6 degrees of freedom, Page 168 two dimensional parts have 3 degrees of freedom; Pages 78-81 the parts can be 2D or 3D; Pages 28 and 63, the translation and rotational motion of each part is defined by the degrees of freedom)
constraining each representative part of the plurality of representative parts not to displace; (Pages 479 and 485, suing the support function the displacement of the point is set to 0.0)
transforming a finite element stiffness matrix of the constrained representative parts to eliminate original degrees of freedom in favor of degrees of freedom for each representative part node of the set of representative part nodes; and (Page 255, the degrees of freedom can be changed; Figure 1-7 Page 30, degrees of freedom are removed; Pages 492 and 494 a degree of freedom is then applied to the points based on the single point)
assembling a transformed element stiffness matrix to determine a reduced stiffness matrix. (Page 28 The global stiffness matrix is reduced to a reduced stiffness matrix)
determining a singular mode in the reduced stiffness matrix; and (Page 251-255 a singular mode is found in the reduced matrix)
identifying the singular mode as corresponding to the unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between representative parts of the initial computer implemented FE model (Page 251-255 the determined mode is found to have a stiffness of 0 (unconstrained) between parts)
wherein the sub-components for each of the representative parts interrelate internally and externally according to the initial computer implemented finite element model. (Pages 189-190 Figure 4-57, the subcomponents of the overall part have nodes that relate internally and externally according to the initial finite element model)
Regarding claim 2, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of receiving a resolved initial FE model based on the identifying the unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between representative parts of the initial FE model. (Pages 254-255, the GPSP module identifies the unconstrained node and resolves it)
Regarding claim 3, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of performing a simulation of a stiffness matrix of the resolved initial FE model. (Pages 254-255, the unconstrained node is resolved; Page 506 the overall system is simulated using the structural properties previously written by the program)
Regarding claim 5, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of creating a computer aided drafting (CAD) representation of a mechanical assembly. (Figures 6.1 and 6.1, Listing of 6.1, Pages 251-257 and 350-351, a model of a mechanical assembly is made)
Regarding claim 6, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 5. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of creating the initial FE model of the mechanical assembly. (Figures 6.1 and 6.1, Listing of 6.1, Pages 251-257 and 350-351, a model of a mechanical assembly is made, including an initial finite element model)
Regarding claim 7, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 6. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of submitting the initial FE model for FE simulation. (page 506 the model is simulated)
Regarding claim 8, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of notifying a user of the CAD application of the identified singular mode. (Page 254, a grid point table that identifies local singularities in the stiffness matrix is made and conveyed to the user; Page 251-255 a singular mode is found in the reduced matrix)
Regarding claim 9, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Nastran also anticipates further comprising the step of resolving the at least one unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between representative parts in the initial FE model based on the identified unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between representative parts of the initial FE model. (Pages 251-257, the program constrains the nodes that are identified as unconstrained between parts)
Regarding claim 10, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 4. Nastran also anticipates treating each representative part as rigid with the respective single representative node for each representative part of the plurality of 2D and/or 3D representative parts acting as a rigid body reference; and (Pages 21, 80, 193, 196, 323, The parts are treated as rigid bodies)
iterating over finite element entities associated with connections between representative parts and/or ground. (Page 506, the system simulates the system by iterating over the matrices that describe the connections between parts)
Regarding claim 13, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Nastran also anticipates wherein the unconstrained or low-stiffness connection is detected prior to running a simulation; the method further comprising: reporting the identified singular mode to a simulation analyst, (Pages 421 and 736, unconstrained nodes are reported to the user; Page 662, all output files are reported to the user; Pages 251-255, unconstrained nodes are reported to the user to be edited)
receiving an adjustment of the finite element model to restrain the detected unconstrained or low-stiffness connection and thereby produce an adjusted finite element model. (Pages 447-449 All nodes are checked to see if they are constrained; Pages 251-255, unconstrained or weakly constrained nodes are edited by the user or the program automatically)
Regarding claim 14, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 13. Nastran also anticipates further comprising: executing a simulation based on the adjusted finite element model. (Pages 251-255 and 506, the system is simulated after the matrix is properly populated with values)
Regarding claim 15, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 13. Nastran also anticipates wherein the identified singular mode is automatically identified by simulation software without delay. (Pages 447-449 and Pages 251-255 the system automatically identifies and fixes singular nodes that are not constrained)
In regards to claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claims 1, 13 and 14 with similar limitations to claim 1, 13 and 14, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1, 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 17, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 16. Nastran also anticipates after executing the simulation based on the FE model, determining whether the simulation was successful; and (Page 476 the system will run with unconstrained structures resulting in a successful simulation)
depending on whether the simulation was determined to be successful, either: enabling the user to diagnose and modify the FE model and to submit a modified version of the FE model for a subsequent FE simulation; or (Pages 447-449 All nodes are checked to see if they are constrained; Pages 251-255, unconstrained or weakly constrained nodes are edited by the user or the program automatically)
enabling the user to analyze results of the FE simulation. (Pages 421 and 736, unconstrained nodes are reported to the user; Page 662, all output files are reported to the user; Pages 251-255, unconstrained nodes are reported to the user to be edited; all of these reports allow the results to be analyzed by the user)
Regarding claim 19, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 16. Nastran also anticipates further comprising: determining a singular mode in the global reduced stiffness matrix; and (Page 251-255 a singular mode is found in the reduced matrix)
identifying the singular mode as corresponding to the unconstrained or low-stiffness connection between representative parts of the FE model representation. (Page 251-255 the determined mode is found to have a stiffness of 0 (unconstrained) between parts)
Regarding claim 20, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 16. Nastran also anticipates further comprising: automatically resolving any unconstrained displacement modes identified with the global reduced stiffness matrix by adding artificial stiffness or damping. (Pages 447-449 All nodes are checked to see if they are constrained; Pages 251-255, unconstrained or weakly constrained nodes are edited by the program automatically)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nastran in view of Dharmasaroja et al. “Load Case Characterization for the Aircraft Structural Design Process (hereinafter Dharm).
Regarding claim 11, Nastran anticipates the limitations of claim 10. Nastran teaches converting an element stiffness matrix for each representative part of the plurality of 2D and/or 3D representative parts into a translation and rotation matrix involving only translations and rotations of reference points; (Pages 63 and 254 a translation and rotation matrix are made for the stiffness element; Page 28 a global stiffness matrix is made)
incorporating the translation and rotation matrix into a global stiffness matrix; and (Page 28 a global stiffness matrix is made)
Nastran does not explicitly teach performing a singular value decomposition of the global stiffness matrix.
Dharm teaches performing a singular value decomposition of the global stiffness matrix. (Abstract, Page 2784 Section 2, Page 2788 Section 3, singular value decomposition is used on the global stiffness matrix)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nastran with Dharm as the references deal with finite elment simulation of structures, in order to implement a system that takes a singular value decomposition and reports it. Dharm would modify Nastran by calculating a singular value decomposition and reporting it to the user. The benefit of doing so is tens of characteristic loads can be used instead of thousands of characteristic loads. (Dharm Abstract)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nastran and Dharm teaches the limitations of claim 11. Nastran teaches reporting … an indication of a mode to be stabilized to a user of the CAD application. (Page 254, a grid point table that identifies local singularities in the stiffness matrix is made and conveyed to the user)
Nastran does not explicitly teach detecting a modal stiffness value corresponding an unconstrained mode in an output of the singular value decomposition; and reporting a corresponding mode shape output from the singular value decomposition … to a user of the CAD application.
Dharm teaches detecting a modal stiffness value corresponding an unconstrained mode in an output of the singular value decomposition; (Pages 2784-2785 Section 2, 0 or negligible values are detected as an output of the SVD, by multiplying by or receiving an output of zero, the mode is free to move without restriction)
reporting a corresponding mode shape output from the singular value decomposition … to a user of the CAD application. (Abstract, Pages 2784-2785 Section 2, Page 2789 Section 3, Figures 10-21, using the Nastran program the mode shape is outputted to the user)
Allowable Subject Matter
The 101 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 is withdrawn based on the amendments filed 8/6/2025. The limitations include the clarification that the models are implemented and stored in the computer, which cannot be done in the human mind, in combination with the all of the remaining limitations. This makes the claim eligible at Step 2A Prong 1 as not being directed to an abstract idea. The claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 102 rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that no prior art has been applied to claim 18, but it is not allowable as it is rejected under 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shebini USPAT 4,858,146: also teaches the connection of element nodes and the use of matrices to define stiffness.
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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188