DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 9/26/25.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 are currently pending.
4. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 are original.
5. Claims 5-7, 12, 16 and 18-19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that with the recent amendment to independent claim 1, the claims
are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, where the claim limitations reflect to an improvement to the
function and outcome of a computer software simulation by providing results that more
accurately simulate and model the interactions between highly deformable structures that contain
or are surrounded by a fluid. The applicant points to paragraphs [0061] – [0062] of the
specification and Figs. 7A-7H of the drawings to for support as to why the claims shows an
improvement. (Remarks: pages 4-7)
7. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it
states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a
computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2015). This explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the
function and outcome of a computer software simulation.
Also, the examiner notes that the recent amendment that states “wherein: the structure
model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the examiner notes that the limitation of “(c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what forces are being calculated at the set of particles and how the set of particles are activated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly limitations are shown below.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
8. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the prior art of record doesn’t establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where the references would not be combined together to teach the limitations of the claim. (Remarks: pages 7-8)
9. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the Hamamoto et al. reference teaches a method of preparing a fluid-structure interactive numerical model including interaction between fluid behavior and behavior of a structure as a living organism. The Idelsohn et al. reference teaches a fluid-structure interaction using a particle finite element method. The Yamazaki et al. reference teaches providing a fluid structure interaction simulation in a computer. This demonstrates that these references deal with analyzing a fluid structure interaction.
The examiner notes that with the recent amendment to the claims, a new reference has been added. The support of obviousness to combine the references are shown below.
10. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the Idelsohn et al. reference doesn’t teach the recent amendment that states “wherein: the structure model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation”, where the Idelsohn et al. reference teaches the difference between fluid structure interaction (FSI) interfaces having weak and strong interactions. Also, the applicant argues that the Idelsohn et al. reference doesn’t teach a set of particles representing the fluid structure interaction (FSI) interface. (Remarks: pages 7-9)
11. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that there isn’t support within the specification for the recent amendment that states “wherein: the structure model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation”. In paragraph [0005] of the specification it states “[0005] In order to use the partitioned approach, FSI interface needs to be properly tracked during simulation. Generally, FSI interface tracking can be done with a body-fitted mesh. However, solution instability may occur when a physical system containing complex material models with extreme deformations results in multiple contact points between fluid and structure.”. In paragraph [0040] of the specification it states “[0040] Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computerized method widely used in industry to model and solve engineering problems relating to complex systems. FEA derives its name from the manner in which the geometry of the object under consideration is specified. With the advent of the modern digital computer, FEA has been implemented as FEA software. Basically, the FEA software is provided with a model of the geometric description and the associated material properties at each point within the model. In this model, the geometry of the system under analysis is represented by solids, shells and beams of various sizes, which are called elements. The vertices of the elements are referred to as nodes. The model is comprised of a finite number of elements, which are assigned a material name to associate with material properties. The model thus represents the physical space occupied by the object under analysis along with its immediate surroundings. The FEA software then refers to a table in which the properties (e.g., stress-strain constitutive equation, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, thermo- conductivity) of each material type are tabulated. Additionally, the conditions at the boundary of the object (i.e., loadings, constraints, etc.) are specified. Boundary conditions can include known displacements at specific degree-of-freedom (DOF). Constraints may be a surface-based constraint for coupling displacements/movements of two nodes in a model. In this fashion a model of the object and its environment is created.”. There’s no mentioning of a structure model comprising a complex material model configured for deformation and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the structural model comprising material properties, as being the structure model comprises a complex material model, since there’s support for this within the specification, see paragraph [0040] of the specification. The examiner notes that in paragraph [0061] of the Hamamoto et al. reference, it teaches determining the thickness of an equivalent numerical model of an actual structure which deforms equivalently as the actual wing. The examiner considers the thickness of the numerical model to be the material properties since the thickness is a property of the numerical model.
Also, the examiner notes that the Idelsohn et al. reference teaches free surface particles in fluid interacting with a ship (solid). This interaction is modeled in 3D, which demonstrates that there’s a fluid model and a structure model, where a set of particles represent a fluid structure interaction interface, see Pg. 2102 2nd paragraph and Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph of the Idelsohn et al. reference.
Further, the examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly limitations are shown below.
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 1-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 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. In claim 1, the examiner has not seen any written description of the structure model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object. In paragraph [0005] of the specification it states “[0005] In order to use the partitioned approach, FSI interface needs to be properly tracked during simulation. Generally, FSI interface tracking can be done with a body-fitted mesh. However, solution instability may occur when a physical system containing complex material models with extreme deformations results in multiple contact points between fluid and structure.”. In paragraph [0040] of the specification it states “[0040] Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computerized method widely used in industry to model and solve engineering problems relating to complex systems. FEA derives its name from the manner in which the geometry of the object under consideration is specified. With the advent of the modern digital computer, FEA has been implemented as FEA software. Basically, the FEA software is provided with a model of the geometric description and the associated material properties at each point within the model. In this model, the geometry of the system under analysis is represented by solids, shells and beams of various sizes, which are called elements. The vertices of the elements are referred to as nodes. The model is comprised of a finite number of elements, which are assigned a material name to associate with material properties. The model thus represents the physical space occupied by the object under analysis along with its immediate surroundings. The FEA software then refers to a table in which the properties (e.g., stress-strain constitutive equation, Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, thermo- conductivity) of each material type are tabulated. Additionally, the conditions at the boundary of the object (i.e., loadings, constraints, etc.) are specified. Boundary conditions can include known displacements at specific degree-of-freedom (DOF). Constraints may be a surface-based constraint for coupling displacements/movements of two nodes in a model. In this fashion a model of the object and its environment is created.”. There’s no mentioning of a structure model comprising a complex material model configured for deformation and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the structural model comprising material properties, as being the structure model comprises a complex material model, since there’s support for this within the specification, see paragraph [0040] of the specification. Also, dependent claims 2-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), since these claims depend upon claim 1.
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 1-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claim 1
Regarding step 1, claim 1 is directed towards a method which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “wherein: the structure model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “and (ii)each finite element of the set of finite elements is associated with one or more of the set of particles”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the location of the respective particle is updated according to the structural behaviors”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving a structure model representing a physical object, a fluid model representing a fluid domain, and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “(b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the activating of the set of particles are occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what forces are being calculated at the set of particles and how the set of particles are activated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the respective forces are being converted to nodal forces. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(e) deactivating the set of particles, and simulating structural behaviors of the physical object based on the nodal forces and using the structure model while the set of particles are deactivated” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the set of particles are being deactivated or what the structural behaviors of the physical object are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer. The computer would be recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “receiving a structure model representing a physical object, a fluid model representing a fluid domain, and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model” is also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “(b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the activating of the set of particles are occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what forces are being calculated at the set of particles and how the set of particles are activated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the respective forces are being converted to nodal forces. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “(e) deactivating the set of particles, and simulating structural behaviors of the physical object based on the nodal forces and using the structure model while the set of particles are deactivated” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the set of particles are being deactivated or what the structural behaviors of the physical object are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the fluid domain locates outside of the physical object”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein the fluid domain locates inside of the physical object”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the set of particles are located on an outer surface of the structure model at predefined locations”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the fluid model comprises a finite element analysis model.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the fluid model comprises a finite volume method model.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein each particle comprises a radius.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the set of particles comprises discrete element method particles.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the obtaining the fluid behaviors comprising updating the fluid model.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the fluid behaviors comprises fluid velocities and pressures of a fluid flow in the fluid domain.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein said each force comprises friction and pressure drag forces.”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the obtaining the structure behaviors comprising updating the structure model.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Hamamoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0125644) in view of online reference Fluid-structure interaction using the particle finite element method, written by Idelsohn et al. in further view of online reference FEA Loading Tips, written by Abbey in further view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0288834).
With respect to claim 1, Hamamoto et al. discloses “A computer-implemented
method” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0032] “An object of the present invention is to provide a method of preparing a fluid-structure interactive numerical model including interaction between fluid behavior and behavior of a structure as a living organism”)];
“receiving a structure model representing a physical object, a fluid model representing a fluid domain” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0034] “and the step of preparing equivalent numerical model of actual structure that can be regarded as equivalent to the actual structure, in which the physical values related to the actual structure measured in the actual structure measuring step are given as numerical values”, Hamamoto et al. paragraph [0036] “In the method of preparing fluid-structure interactive numerical model of the present invention further includes the fluid-structure interaction analysis step, in which, in a preset numerical fluid model for analysis, a prescribed motion represented by a motion numerical model is performed by an equivalent numerical model of actual structure, the numerical model related to the model fluid and the numerical model related to the equivalent numerical model of actual structure are processed to numerical models including interaction between the fluid behavior and the structural behavior.”)];
“wherein: the structure model comprises a complex material model configured for deformation” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0061] “By this method, it is possible to determine the thickness of the equivalent numerical model of actual structure which deforms equivalently as the actual wing, in an easy and reasonable manner, in the equivalent numerical model of actual structure having the shell structure.”, The examiner notes that there isn’t written description for a structure model comprising a complex material model. As stated above, the examiner considers the structural model comprising material properties, as being the structure model comprises a complex material model, since there’s support for this within the specification, see paragraph [0040] of the specification. Also, the examiner considers the thickness of the numerical model to be the material properties since the thickness is a property of the numerical model)];
“and a set of finite elements defining a surface of the physical object” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0194] “The method of analysis used by the inventors is the strong coupling method of fluid and structure, in accordance with ALE finite element analysis method”)];
“(e) deactivating the set of particles, and simulating structural behaviors of the physical object based on the nodal forces and using the structure model while the set of particles are deactivated” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0217] “FIG. 11 represents the total nodal force in the direction of y axis at nodes 71, 83 and 337 calculated by this method. As the forced displacement is exerted on these three points, the total of nodal forces at these points represent the force exerted on the body. The nodal force, which is irregular in the initial state, eventually converges to a periodic behavior. Specifically, the behavior of the fluid and the behavior of the structure both become periodic at this time point, which are equivalent to the behavior of the fluid and the behavior of the structure at the time of hovering.”, Hamamoto et al. paragraph [0223] “The numerical model obtained through the above described method can directly be applied to control of a fluttering robot, as will be described later. Alternatively, it may be possible to clarify air dynamic force utilized by an insect from the numerical model itself obtained from the fluid-structure interactive analysis”, The examiner considers the model of the object without particles to be the simulating the structural behavior with deactivating the set of particles)];
While the Hamamoto et al. reference teaches a fluid-structure interaction and particle structures moving in fluid of different types, Hamamoto et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose “and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model; and (ii)each finite element of the set of finite elements is associated with one or more of the set of particles; (b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements; (c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle; wherein the location of the respective particle is updated according to the structural behaviors.”
Idelsohn et al. discloses “and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2102, 1st paragraph “FSI problems have been classically solved in a partitioned manner solving iteratively the discretized equations for the flow and the solid domain separately. The solution of both, fluid flow and solid, with the same material formulation, open the door to solve the global coupled problem in a monolithic fashion. Nevertheless, in this paper the rigid solid will still be solved separately from the fluid. A partitioned method [20,12] or iterative method [23,24,27] is chosen to solve the coupling between the fluid and solid.”, Idelsohn et al. Pg. 2102 2nd paragraph “Finally the efficiency of the particle finite element method for solving a variety of fluid–structure interaction problems involving large motion of the free-surface in the fluid is shown.”, Idelsohn et al. Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59).”, Idelsohn et al. Pg. 2116, sec. 7.3 Dam collapse, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “The dam collapse problem represented in Fig. 7.4 was solved by Koshizu and Oka [10] both experimentally and numerically in a 2D domain. It became a classical example to test the validation of the Lagrangian formulation in fluid flows. The water is initially located on the left supported by a removable board. The collapse starts at time tw = 0, when the removable board is slid-up. Viscosity and surface tension are neglected. The water is running on the bottom wall until, near 0.3 s, it impinges on the right vertical wall. Breaking waves appear at 0.6 s. Around t = 1 s the main water wave reaches the left wall again. In [8] the results obtained using the method proposed in 2-D and 3-D domains are presented and compared with experimental results. Agreement with the experimental results of [10] both in the shape of the free surface and in the time development are excellent”, Figs. 7.4 and 8.1, The examiner notes that with the free surface particles in the fluid interacting with the ship (solid) as shown in Fig. 8.1 of the Idelsohn et al. reference, demonstrates that there are a set of particles that represent a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface. Also, the examiner notes that Fig. 7.4 of the Idelsohn et al. reference is another example of an interaction between a fluid and solid (structure), where it’s modeled in 3D. This demonstrates that there’s a fluid model and a structure model)];
“and (ii)each finite element of the set of finite elements is associated with one or more of the set of particles” as [Idelsohn et al. (Abstract “The so called particle finite element method (PFEM) provides a very advantageous and efficient way for solving contact and free-surface problems, highly simplifying the treatment of fluid–structure interactions”, Pg. 2113, sec. 7, Validation examples, 1st paragraph, “PFEM was developed as a general-purpose method for solving different kind of problems on which large free surface or interface boundaries changes are involved. The method is well suited to solve a large variety of mechanical problems including mixing fluid and solid materials, wave motion problems, mould filling, coupled thermal–mechanical problems and fluid–solid interaction as well.”)];
“(b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2116, sec. 7.3 Dam collapse, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “The dam collapse problem represented in Fig. 7.4 was solved by Koshizu and Oka [10] both experimentally and numerically in a 2D domain. It became a classical example to test the validation of the Lagrangian formulation in fluid flows. The water is initially located on the left supported by a removable board. The collapse starts at time tw = 0, when the removable board is slid-up. Viscosity and surface tension are neglected. The water is running on the bottom wall until, near 0.3 s, it impinges on the right vertical wall. Breaking waves appear at 0.6 s. Around t = 1 s the main water wave reaches the left wall again. In [8] the results obtained using the method proposed in 2-D and 3-D domains are presented and compared with experimental results. Agreement with the experimental results of [10] both in the shape of the free surface and in the time development are excellent”, Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph, “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59)”, Figs. 7.4 and 8.1, Fig. 8.1 of the Idelsohn et al. reference shows the motion of the ship and the position of the particles for different time steps)];
“(c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2101, last paragraph, “The approximation for the FSI problem depends basically on the coupling of the fluid and structure equations. Based on this coupling FSI problems may be divided into problems with weak interaction and problems with strong interaction. The later are found when elastic deformation of the solid takes place. The weak interpolation case happens when large rigid displacements are present. This situation is typical in ship hydrodynamics, when a rigid body moves according to the forces given by the pressure field obtained from the fluid dynamic problem. These forces applied to the rigid body will accelerate it, changing its velocity and therefore, its position.”, Idelsohn et al., Pg. 2103, Solid dynamics problem: updating the rigid body position, 1st paragraph, “In this paper, the structure will be considered as a rigid solid. Then, the equations of motion for a rigid body are
PNG
media_image1.png
41
103
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, etc.”, Idelsohn et al., Pg. 2116, sec. 7.3 Dam collapse, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “The dam collapse problem represented in Fig. 7.4 was solved by Koshizu and Oka [10] both experimentally and numerically in a 2D domain. It became a classical example to test the validation of the Lagrangian formulation in fluid flows. The water is initially located on the left supported by a removable board. The collapse starts at time tw = 0, when the removable board is slid-up. Viscosity and surface tension are neglected. The water is running on the bottom wall until, near 0.3 s, it impinges on the right vertical wall. Breaking waves appear at 0.6 s. Around t = 1 s the main water wave reaches the left wall again. In [8] the results obtained using the method proposed in 2-D and 3-D domains are presented and compared with experimental results. Agreement with the experimental results of [10] both in the shape of the free surface and in the time development are excellent”)];
“wherein the location of the respective particle is updated according to the structural behaviors” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59).”, Figs. 7.4 and 8.1)];
Hamamoto et al. and Idelsohn et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the interaction between a fluid and a solid.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hamamoto et al. of having a fluid-structure interaction and particle structures moving in fluid of different types by incorporating and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model; and (ii)each finite element of the set of finite elements is associated with one or more of the set of particles; (b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements; (c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle; wherein the location of the respective particle is updated according to the structural behaviors as taught by Idelsohn et al. for the purpose of solving fluid-structure interaction problems.
Hamamoto et al. in view of Idelsohn et al. teaches and a set of particles representing a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) interface between the fluid model and the structure model; and (ii)each finite element of the set of finite elements is associated with one or more of the set of particles; (b) activating the set of particles as coupling points between the structure model and the fluid model, and determining locations for each particle of the set of particles based upon a shape function of a corresponding finite element of the set of finite elements; (c) simulating fluid behaviors of the fluid domain using the fluid model while the set of particles are activated, to calculate respective forces at the set of particles of the FSI interface, each force calculated from the fluid behaviors and the determined location of a respective particle; wherein the location of the respective particle is updated according to the structural behaviors.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Idelsohn et al. teaches that by solving fluid-structure interaction problems, the ability to simply the treatment of fluid-structure interactions can be accomplished, where the reproduction of breaking waves or separate drops of fluid are easier to analyze (Idelsohn et al. Pg. 2102, 1st paragraph “FSI problems have been classically solved in a partitioned manner solving, etc.”, Idelsohn et al. Pg. 2122, Conclusions, 1st – 2nd paragraph, “The particle finite element method (PFEM) seems ideal to treat, etc.”).
While the combination of Hamamoto et al. and Idelsohn et al. teaches forces at each particle and nodal forces, Hamamoto et al. and Idelsohn et al. do not explicitly disclose “(d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements”
Abbey discloses “(d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements” as [Abbey (Pg. 2, 1st paragraph, “We can also apply loads directly to the faces of elements in a preprocessor; however, behind the scenes the solver is converting that element loading to an equivalent nodal loading. Fig. 1 shows schematically this chain of events.”, Abbey, Pg. 2, 2nd paragraph, “A good example of the solver translation from element base loading to nodal-based loading is seen in a bar element. It is quite possible to apply either a distributed loading or midpoint loading to the bar.”, Fig. 1)];
Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al. and Abbey are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing forces on an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hamamoto et al. and Idelsohn et al. of having forces at each particle and nodal forces by incorporating (d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements as taught by Abbey for the purpose of loading into structures.
Hamamoto et al. in view of Idelsohn et al. in further view of Abbey teaches (d) converting the respective forces at each particle of the set of particles to nodal forces associated with corresponding finite elements of the set of finite elements.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Abbey teaches that by loading into structures with a finite element analysis, the ability to asses what the footprint of the structure looks like can be accomplished. This allows the mesh to follow the shape of the structure (Abbey Pg. 6, 3rd – 4th paragraph, “The goal is to assess how, etc.”).
While the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al. and Abbey teaches simulating the fluid-structure interaction, Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al. and Abbey do not explicitly disclose “a computer”
Yamazaki et al. discloses “a computer” as [Yamazaki et al. (paragraph [0015] “According to one aspect of one embodiment, there is provided a fluid structure interaction simulation method to be implemented in a computer, that includes a graph information forming process, executed by the computer”, Yamazaki et al. paragraph [0016] “According to one aspect of one embodiment, there is provided a fluid structure interaction simulation apparatus including a storage part configured to store a program, and a processor configured to perform a fluid structure interaction simulation by executing the program, etc.”)];
Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing forces on an object.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al. and Abbey of simulating the fluid-structure interaction by incorporating a computer as taught by Yamazaki et al.
Hamamoto et al. in view of Idelsohn et al. in further view of Abbey in further view of Yamazaki et al. teaches a computer.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Yamazaki et al. teaches that by providing a fluid structure interaction simulation method to be implemented in a computer, the ability to generate graph information of nodes obtained by discretising a computing region for each of a fluid and a structure, can be accomplished, in order to simply the analyzation of the simulation process (Yamazaki et al. Abstract, paragraph [0015]).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Hamamoto et al. further discloses “wherein the fluid domain locates outside of the physical object.” as [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0113] “The method of preparing fluid-structure interactive numerical model of the present embodiment is to prepare a numerical model related to air as the fluid and a numerical value related to the wing structure, obtained by analyzing structure of the wing of an insect and the manner of fluttering flight of the insect, when the insect flies fluttering in the air.”)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the fluid domain locates inside of the physical object.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2116, sec. 7.3 Dam collapse, 1st – 3rd paragraph, “The dam collapse problem represented in Fig. 7.4 was solved by Koshizu and Oka [10] both experimentally and numerically in a 2D domain. It became a classical example to test the validation of the Lagrangian formulation in fluid flows. The water is initially located on the left supported by a removable board. The collapse starts at time tw = 0, when the removable board is slid-up. Viscosity and surface tension are neglected. The water is running on the bottom wall until, near 0.3 s, it impinges on the right vertical wall. Breaking waves appear at 0.6 s. Around t = 1 s the main water wave reaches the left wall again. In [8] the results obtained using the method proposed in 2-D and 3-D domains are presented and compared with experimental results. Agreement with the experimental results of [10] both in the shape of the free surface and in the time development are excellent”, Fig. 7.4, In the dam collapse example, the water flowing and crashing into the vertical when the removable board is slid-up, demonstrates that the fluid domain is located within the physical object)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the set of particles are located on an outer surface of the structure model at predefined locations.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2102, 2.1, Fluid dynamic problem: updating the fluid particle positions, 2nd paragraph “Let Xi the initial position of a particle a time t = t0 and let xi the final position, etc.”)];
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Hamamoto et al. further discloses “wherein the fluid model comprises a finite element analysis model.” As [Hamamoto et al. (paragraph [0194] “The method of analysis used by the inventors is the strong coupling method of fluid and structure, in accordance with ALE finite element analysis method”)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Yamazaki et al. further discloses “wherein the fluid model comprises a finite volume method model.” As [Yamazaki et al. (paragraph [0101] “The fourth sub part 64 computes an interaction matrix of the correcting function of the pressure and the displacement velocity of the structure. In the following description, the same designations are used as in the above description, such that the fluid region (or control volume) is denoted, etc.”)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein each particle comprises a radius.” As [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2112, sec. 5 Free-surface and boundary recognition, 4th paragraph “The particles will follow a given h(x) distribution according to the maximum error allowed for the discrete space problem, where h(x) is the expected distance among neighboring particles. Then, having all the empty Vorono spheres and h(x) the boundary particles are regarded as: all the particles which are on an empty sphere with a radius r bigger than ah.”)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the set of particles comprises discrete element method particles.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2112, sec. 5 Free-surface and boundary recognition, 1st paragraph, “The solution of partial differential equations (PDE) requires to prescribe boundary conditions as a necessary step to a well-posed problem. When the PDEs are approximated in space and the domain is partitioned into discrete elements (finite elements, particles, balls, nodes, etc.) the boundary elements should be provided at the initial time step, such that, at run time the algorithm knows where to impose or fix the variables of the analysis (pressure, velocity and their derivatives for instance). This would be the case of a static domain, where the geometry does not change in time and the boundaries remain constant.”)];
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the obtaining the fluid behaviors comprising updating the fluid model.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph, “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59). Fig. 8.1 shows instants of the motion of the ship and the surrounding fluid. It is interesting to see the breaking of a wave on the ship prow at t = 0.91 s. as well as on the stern at t = 2.05 s when the wave goes back. Note that some water drops slip over the ship deck at t = 1.3 s and 2.95 s”
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the fluid behaviors comprises fluid velocities and pressures of a fluid flow in the fluid domain.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph, “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59). Fig. 8.1 shows instants of the motion of the ship and the surrounding fluid. It is interesting to see the breaking of a wave on the ship prow at t = 0.91 s. as well as on the stern at t = 2.05 s when the wave goes back. Note that some water drops slip over the ship deck at t = 1.3 s and 2.95 s”)];
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein said each force comprises friction and pressure drag forces.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph, “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59). Fig. 8.1 shows instants of the motion of the ship and the surrounding fluid. It is interesting to see the breaking of a wave on the ship prow at t = 0.91 s. as well as on the stern at t = 2.05 s when the wave goes back. Note that some water drops slip over the ship deck at t = 1.3 s and 2.95 s”)];
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Hamamoto et al., Idelsohn et al., Abbey and Yamazaki et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Idelsohn et al. further discloses “wherein the obtaining the structure behaviors comprising updating the structure model.” as [Idelsohn et al. (Pg. 2119, 1st paragraph, “The dynamic motion of the ship is induced by the resultant of the pressure and the viscous forces acting on the ship boundaries. The horizontal displacement of the mass centre of the ship was fixed to zero. In this way, the ship moves only vertically although it can freely rotate. The position of the ship boundary at each time step is evaluated using Eq. (76) and the velocity of the body by using Eq. (18). This defines a moving boundary condition for the free surface particles in the fluid as introduced in Eq. (59). Fig. 8.1 shows instants of the motion of the ship and the surrounding fluid. It is interesting to see the breaking of a wave on the ship prow at t = 0.91 s. as well as on the stern at t = 2.05 s when the wave goes back. Note that some water drops slip over the ship deck at t = 1.3 s and 2.95 s”)];
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F Pitaro can be reached at (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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188