DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to the communication dated 5/12/2026
Case No. 17/501,798
Claims 1- 14, 18, 21, 22 are cancelled.
Claim 15, 16, 27, 28 are amended.
Claims 15 – 17, 19, 20, 23 – 32 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant has amended claim 15 to recite:
“… determining that the second number meets the formation threshold, wherein the formation threshold corresponds to a numeric process zone at a crack tip,
wherein… the second number being greater than or equal to a threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements concurrently in the release state, and
Wherein a mesh size of the plurality of discrete and finite elements is objectively set based on the material input properties of the component such that the threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements is contained within a predicted minimum size of the numeric processing zone; and
Determining that a crack is beginning to form through the numeric processing zone… “
The Applicant asserts that the cited prior art references do not make these amended elements obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In response, the Office disagrees.
The claim recites “a first number” of discrete and finite element at a “first time” and “a second number” of discrete and finite elements at a “second time.” Accordingly, the claim is describing the evolution of a crack in time as the number of finite elements that are part of a crack (i.e., are in the release state) increases over time.
For example, Fig. 15 of Turon_2005 (shown below) clearly illustrates a time evolution of crack propagation in which the number of finite elements in the release state at a second time are greater than the number of finite elements in a release state at a first time. Further, the crack formation threshold is clearly illustrated in correspondence to a numeric processing zone. Fig. 5 of Turon_2005 also explicitly illustrates crack formation at a crack tip in correspondence with a numeric processing zone called a cohesive zone. It is clear to those of ordinary skill in the art that, when modeled as finite elements, that the very definition of crack formation is the number of finite elements in release state evolving over time to be greater than the number of finite elements concurrently in the release state.
PNG
media_image1.png
607
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Turon_2005 teaches that finite elements have dimensions in, for example, mm. Accordingly, a finite element’s dimensions provide an indication of length. Indeed, Turon_2005 discusses in detail the measurement of the cohesive zone length in terms of the dimensions of the finite elements. Therefore, when the claim recites: “… determining that the second number meets the formation threshold, wherein the formation threshold corresponds to a numeric process zone at a crack tip, wherein… the second number being greater than or equal to a threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements concurrently in the release state…” this is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as determining that the number of units used to measure a crack length indicate that the crack is longer based on the number of units used to measure the length of the crack are greater than the number of units currently indicating the length of the crack. This, is precisely how a tape measure works and those of ordinary skill in the art would find measuring the length of a crack using some unit of measure obvious.
Turon_2005 also teaches to calculate the length of a processing zone according to equation 8 on page 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
86
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
E is the Young modulus of the material, Gc is the critical energy release rate. Page 10 states “in order to obtain accurate FEM results using CZM, the traction in the cohesive zone must be represented properly by finite element spatial discretization” and then teaches to calculate the number of elements according to equation 9.
PNG
media_image4.png
87
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where le is the mesh size in the direction of crack propagation. Further at page 10, Turon_2005 states that “when the cohesive zone is discretized by too few elements, the fracture energy is not represented accurately” and states “therefore, a minimum number of elements, Ne, is needed in the cohesive zone to get successful FEM results.”
Therefore, Turon_2005 makes obvious to have a mesh size of the plurality of discrete and finite elements objectively set based on the material input properties (e.g., Young’s modulus, etc.) of the component such that the threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements is contained within a predicted minimum size of the numeric processing zone.
End Response to Arguments
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turon_2005 (An Engineering Solution for solving Mesh Size Effects in the Simulation of Delamination with Cohesive Zone Models, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia U.S.A, June 2005) in view of Mi_1998 (Progressive Delamination Using Interface Elements, Journal of COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 32, No 14/1998) in view of Justusson_2020 (US 2020/0257768 A1).
Claim 15. Turon_2005 make obvious a method comprising: (Abstract: “the paper presents a methodology…”; page 16: “… according to the proposed methodology…”; page 19: “… the methodology proposed…”) generating a plurality of discrete and finite elements associated with a component (Fig. 10, 15; page 2: “… the simulation of delamination using the finite element method (FEM) is normally performed by… using decohesion finite elements [2] – [10]…”; Fig. 5, 7, 8, 10) ,
; Identify material input properties of the component (page 4: “… the formation of the decohesion finite elements is based on the Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) approach… Thus, a CZM is characterized by the properties of the bulk material…”); Modeling a respective release response based on the material input properties (page 4: “… the formation of the decohesion finite elements is based on the Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) approach… Thus, a CZM is characterized by the properties of the bulk material… Cohesive damage zone models relate traction, τ, to displacement jumps Δ…”; page 5: “… the law used in this paper is a bilinear relation between the tracstions and the displacement jumps [6], [9], [11], [12], [20], (see Figure 2)…”; Table 4), wherein each of the respective release responses maps a relationship between an opening displacement of a corresponding discrete and finite element and a strength of the corresponding discrete and finite element; modeling crack initiation and propagation throughout the plurality of discrete and finite elements based on the respective release responses,
(Page 10 - 11: “… in order to obtain accurate FEM results using CZM, the tractions in the cohesive zone must be represented properly by the finite element spatial discretization. The number of elements in the cohesive zone… when the cohesive zone is discretized by too few elements, the fracture energy is not represented accurately and the model does not capture the continuum field of a cohesive crack. Therefore, a minimum number of elements, Ne, is needed in the cohesive zone to get successful FEM results… Cornetti [29], suggest using more than 10 elements. However, Falk et al. [2] used between 2 and 5 elements in their simulations… in the parametric study of Davila and Camanho [30]… using equation (8)… 3 elements in the cohesive zone were sufficient to predict the propagation of the delamination…”; Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15 illustrated below
PNG
media_image5.png
335
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
257
581
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
338
617
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
443
668
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
602
655
media_image9.png
Greyscale
A cohesive zone is illustrated in Fig. 5 between Max traction and Crack tip. Fig. 2 and 6 clearly illustrate a release response map.
∆
l
0
is illustrated on Fig. 6.
∆
l
0
is a threshold above which a crack is beginning to form. Figures 2 and 6 clearly illustrate the relationship between displacement and strength. In the cohesive zone displacement is increasing and strength is decreasing. Eventually the strength is zero and the crack is fully open. Because Turon_2006’s model ensures a number of finite elements are in the cohesive zone above
∆
l
0
, this means Turon_2006 teaches there is a quantity of discrete finite elements in the release state (i.e., cohesive zone) that meet a threshold
∆
l
0
.)
“wherein each release response, of the respective release responses, indicate a release state, a crack state, or an undamaged state for the corresponding discrete and finite elements” (Fig 10 and 15. Figure 10 explicitly colors each and every finite element according to scale that ranges between undamaged (i.e., green), crack state (i.e., yellow), and release state (i.e., red). Further, Fig. 15 also clearly illustrates that tension is calculated for the finite elements and that the tension % ranges between pre-delamination onset, delamination onset, and delamination propagation.)
“and wherein the release sate indicates the opening displacement is increasing”(Figure 10 and 15 clearly illustrate that when in release state the opening displacement is increasing because the elements on the far left are farther apart than the elements on the right. Indeed, indeed, in Figure 15 delamination shows that the elements are closer together than during delamination propagation.)
“and the strength is decreasing at the corresponding discrete and finite element” (Page 4 teaches “… the formation of decohesion finite elements… one of the most commonly used tools to investigate interfacial fracture… assume that a cohesive damage zone, or softening plasticity, develops near the crack tip… cohesive damage zone models relate to traction, t, to displacement jumps, Δ, at the interface where a crack may occur. Damage initiation is related to the interfacial strength, t, i.e., the maximum traction on the traction-displacement jump relation… the traction is reduced to zero, and new crack surfaces are formed…”. page 12 teaches “the effect of reduction of the interfacial strength is to enlarge the cohesive zone, and this, the model is better suited to capture the softening behavior ahead of the crack tip. By teaching that the strength in the cohesive zone is softening this is clearly teaching that the strength is decreasing across the finite elements in the cohesive zone with the lowest strength at the crack tip.)
“determining, based on modeling the respective release response for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements at a first time, that a first number of discrete and finite elements, of the plurality of discrete and finite elements, are in the release state;
Determining that the first number does not meet a formation threshold at the first time;
Determining, based on modeling the respective release response for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements at a second time after the first time, that a second number of discrete and finite elements, of the plurality of discrete and finite elements are in the release state…” (For example, Page 2 teaches “… the simulation of progressive delamination…”. Progressive delamination makes obvious delamination over time. Fig. 15 illustrates an “evolution” from no delamination to delamination onset and finally to delamination propagation. The teaching of the crack “evolution” and illustrating that at first there is no crack formation and then a small crack and then a larger crack clearly makes the amended limitations obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.)
“determining that the second number meets the formation threshold, wherein the formation threshold corresponds to a numeric process zone at a crack tip, wherein the second number meets the formation threshold based on the second number being greater than or equal to a threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements concurrently in the release state(For example, Figure 5 teaches a cohesive zone where a plurality of finite elements are not yet at the threshold of crack formation. See below.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The length of the cohesive zone illustrated in Fig. 5 is further disclosed as having a number of finite elements at, for example, page 17: “… simulations were performed by specifying the desired number of elements within the cohesive zone to be No= 5…” and Page 21: “… the length of the cohesive zone… a mesh size smaller than 0.1mm is needed in order to have three or more elements in the cohesive zone…”. Also, equations 8 and 9 relate the length of the cohesive zone to the number of finite elements desired.
Further, Figure 15 clearly illustrates a cohesive zone that contains 5 finite elements. The evolution of crack growth is illustrated which demonstrates starting with a first set of 5 finite elements in the cohesive zone and these elements do not yet form a crack, however, the evolution shows that as a crack is formed the finite element at the crack tip leaves the cohesive zone while the finite element at the max. traction edge of the cohesive zone enters the cohesive zone. Accordingly the cohesive zone can be though of as a sliding window containing a number of finite elements.
This makes obvious a 1st, 2nd, 3rd… nth set of finite elements as, in Fig. 15, the cohesive zone slides from left to right.
PNG
media_image10.png
607
665
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Turon_2015 clearly illustrates a time evolution of crack propagation in which the number of finite elements in the release state at a second time are greater than the number of finite elements in a release state at a first time. Further, the crack formation threshold is clearly illustrated in correspondence to a numeric processing zone. Fig. 5 of Turon_2005 (shown above) also explicitly illustrates crack formation at a crack tip in correspondence with a numeric processing zone called a cohesive zone. It is clear to those of ordinary skill in the art that, when modeled as finite elements, that the very definition of crack formation is the number of finite elements in release state evolving over time to be greater than the number of finite elements concurrently in the release state.
Additionally, Turon_2005 teaches that finite elements have dimensions in, for example, mm. Accordingly, a finite element’s dimensions provide an indication of length. Indeed, Turon_2005 discusses in detail the measurement of the cohesive zone length in terms of the dimensions of the finite elements. Therefore, when the claim recites: “… determining that the second number meets the formation threshold, wherein the formation threshold corresponds to a numeric process zone at a crack tip, wherein… the second number being greater than or equal to a threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements concurrently in the release state…” this is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as determining that the number of units used to measure a crack length indicate that the crack is longer based on the number of units used to measure the length of the crack are greater than the number of units currently indicating the length of the crack. This, is precisely how a tape measure works and those of ordinary skill in the art would find measuring the length of a crack using some unit of measure obvious.)
Wherein a mesh size of the plurality of discrete and finite elements is objectively set based on the material input properties of the component such that the threshold quantity of discrete and finite elements is contained within a predicted minimum size of the numeric process zone (Turon_2005 also teaches to calculate the length of a processing zone according to equation 8 on page 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
86
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
E is the Young modulus of the material, Gc is the critical energy release rate. Page 10 states “in order to obtain accurate FEM results using CZM, the traction in the cohesive zone must be represented properly by finite element spatial discretization” and then teaches to calculate the number of elements according to equation 9.
PNG
media_image4.png
87
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where le is the mesh size in the direction of crack propagation. Further at page 10, Turon_2005 states that “when the cohesive zone is discretized by too few elements, the fracture energy is not represented accurately” and states “therefore, a minimum number of elements, Ne, is needed in the cohesive zone to get successful FEM results.”)
“and determining that a crack is beginning to form through the numeric process zone based on the second number meeting the formation threshold” (Figure 15 above)
Also, while Turon_2005 clearly teaches to calculate a release response using a bilinear constitutive equation (page 5: “… the law used in this paper is a bilinear relation between the tractions and the displacement jumps (see Figure 2)…”) discretely along the length of the cohesive zone (Fig. 5) and while it may properly be found the it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the release response “in the plurality of discrete and finite elements”, Turon_2005 does not explicitly illustrate a release response “for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements” as illustrated in the instant specification FIG. 1.
Mi_1998, however, makes obvious to model a respective release response “for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements” and “… wherein each of the respective release response maps a relationship between an opening displacement of a corresponding discrete and finite element and a strength of the corresponding discrete and finite element; Modeling crack initiation and propagation throughout the plurality of discrete and finite elements based on the respective release responses,
Wherein each release response, of the respective release responses, indicates a release state, a crack state, or an undamaged state for the corresponding discrete and finite element, and wherein the release state indicates the opening displacement is increasing and the strength is decressing at the corresponding discrete and finite element;
Determining, based on modeling the respective release response for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements at a first time, that a first number of discrete and finite elements, of the plurality of discrete and finite elements, are in the release state;
Determining that the first number does not meet a formation threshold at the first time;
Determining, based on modeling the respective release response for each discrete and finite element of the plurality of discrete and finite elements at a second time after the first time, that a second number of discrete and finite elements, of the plurality of discrete and finite elements, are in the release state” and “and determine that a crack is beginning to form based on the number meeting the formation threshold.”
(Page 1248 – 1249:
PNG
media_image11.png
353
599
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The above clearly illustrates a release response map. The map illustrates the relationship between strength
б
-
t and strain
ε
-
of the finite elements. The elements are “softening” between
ε
-
0 and
ε
-
max where the elements become successively “softer” (i.e., strength lowers) until above
ε
-
max the crack is completely open. Below
ε
-
0 the crack has not yet started. Therefore,
ε
-
0 is a release state threshold, above which a crack is beginning to form.
Page 1253 – 1254:
PNG
media_image12.png
470
618
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, above, illustrates a finite element mesh along with strength
б
-
t and strain
ε
-
of the interface finite element.
Page 1255 – 1256:
PNG
media_image13.png
144
580
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
702
573
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 is illustrating release response maps for finite elements as a crack occurs. Point 4 is the start of the crack beginning to form. Point 2 is when the crack is completely open. The zone between point 4 and 2 is the crack opening process zone. This is equivalent to Figure 2 between
ε
-
0 and
ε
-
max where the elements become successively “softer” (i.e., strength lowers) until above
ε
-
max the crack is completely open. Below
ε
-
0 the crack has not yet started. Therefore,
ε
-
0 is a release state threshold, above which a crack is beginning to form.
Notice that Mi_1998 explicitly states that “… the mesh must be fine enough to include at least two interface elements in the evolving “process zone” at the tip of the crack…”
If the process zone C includes at least two interface elements then Figure 8 illustrates how to use a release response map to “determine that a crack is beginning to form when a quantity of the plurality of discrete and finite elements in the release state meets a threshold.” Figure 8 illustrates that this occurs at point 4, on the right-hand side of process zone C where the quantity of discrete elements includes at least two and the threshold is
ε
-
0.)
Turon_2005 and Mi_1998 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called delamination analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Mi_1998. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 explicitly teaches to use the teachings of Mi_1998. Turon_2005 states “the law used in this paper is a bilinear relation between the traction and the displacement jumps [6], [9], [11], [12], [20]…” and Mi_1998 is citation [6]. Therefore; it would have been obvious to combine Turon_2005 and Mi_1998 for the benefit of using the cited method of the bilinear relation that Turon_2005 teaches to use to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Turon_2005 and Mi_1988 does not teach “of an aircraft.”
Justusson_2020; however, makes obvious “of an aircraft” (par 15: “… structure 102 is used as part of an aircraft, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (e.g., a drone aircraft), an automobile, a train, a motorcycle, a bus, a ship or boat, a rocket, a spacecraft, an autonomous vehicle, or another vehicle…”).
Turon_2005 and Justusson_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called delamination analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 with Justusson_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to perform analysis/simulation/prediction of delamination using finite element method and to use commercially available software known as Abaqus (page 16: “… the FEM model… the decohesion elements were implemented using a user-written subroutine in the finite-element code ABAQUS… three sets of simulations were performed…”) and Justusson_2020 teaches a computer is capable of performing finite element analysis and to use that finite element analysis to analyze delamination on vehicles including aircraft (see par 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Turon_2005 with the computer of Justusson_2020 for the benefit of executing the ABAQUS computer software on a computer to obtain the invention as specified in the claims that can be applied to perform analysis/simulation/prediction of delamination on vehicles such as aircraft.
Claim 16. Mi_1998 makes obvious “Identify that at least three first discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being in a release state based on the release response; and determine that the at least three first discrete and finite elements form the numeric process zone” (Figure 8).
Turon_2005 also makes obvious “Identify that at least three first discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being in a release state based on the release response; and determine that the at least three first discrete and finite elements form a numeric process zone” (Fig. 10, 15).
Claim 17. Mi_1998 makes obvious “further comprising: identifying one or more discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being in the crack state at the second time based on the release response; and identifying one or more discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being the undamaged state based on the release response (Figure 8)
Turon_2005 also makes obvious “further comprising: identifying one or more discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being in the crack state at the second time based on the release response; and identifying one or more discrete and finite elements of the plurality of discrete and finite elements as being the undamaged state based on the release response (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, 10, 15)
Claim 19. Turon_2005 also makes obvious modeling a crack propagation growth rate based on the stress relationships and the discrete and finite elements being identified as being in the crack state, the release state and the undamaged state (Fig 15, page 9: “… crack propagation occurs when the energy release rate reaches a critical value Gc. The CZM approach prescribes the interfacial normal and shear tractions that resist separation and relative sliding at an interface. The tractions, integrated to complete separation, yield the fracture energy release rate, Gc. The length of the cohesive zone Lcz is defined as the distance from the crack tip to the point where the maximum cohesive traction is attained (see Figure 5)…” NOTE: the crack tip distinguishes between crack state and other states. The maximum cohesion indicates undamaged state. The cohesive zone Lcz indicates release state.); and project a crack progression based on the crack propagation growth rate and the crack propagation” (page 3: “… several simulations of specimens with and without initial cracks were performed, in order to demonstrate that the methodology proposed can accurately predict both crack initiation and propagation…”; page 14 - 15: “… Under mixed-mode loading… components of the energy release rate need to be used to predict crack propagation. The constitutive damage model used here, formulated in the context of Damage Mechanics (DM), was previously proposed by the authros [11]. [12]. All the details of the constitutive model are presented in references [11] and [12]… the formulation presented in previous references is adapted to use the decohesion elements… and a fracture mechanics-based criterion is used to predict crack propagation.. energy per unit surface of the damaged and undamaged interface… displacement… the evolution of damage is defined by G…”; Fig. 15 “delamination propagation” and “evolution of stresses during delamination onset and propagation”).
Claims 23. Mi_1998 makes obvious “wherein the release response indicates the undamaged state for the corresponding discrete and finite element before the strength has reached a maximum, and the release response indicates the crack state for the corresponding discrete and finite element when the strength has reached zero and the opening displacement is at a maximum” (
PNG
media_image11.png
353
599
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The above clearly illustrates a release response map. The map illustrates the relationship between strength
б
-
t and strain
ε
-
of the finite elements. The elements are “softening” between
ε
-
0 and
ε
-
max where the elements become successively “softer” (i.e., strength lowers) until above
ε
-
max the crack is completely open and the strength
б
-
t has reaches zero. Below
ε
-
0 the crack has not yet started and this is an undamaged state. The release response map clearly illustrates that below
ε
-
0 the strength
б
-
t has not yet reached its maximum.
PNG
media_image15.png
195
723
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
386
752
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The maximum open displacement occurs above
ε
-
max.
Turon_2005 also makes obvious “wherein the release response indicates the undamaged state for the corresponding discrete and finite element before the strength has reached a maximum, and the release response indicates the crack state for the corresponding discrete and finite element when the strength has reached zero and the opening displacement is at a maximum” (Fig. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15).
Claim 25. Turon_2005 also makes obvious “wherein the component comprises a material (page 16: simulation of the double cantilever beam… carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy laminate…”), and wherein the material input properties comprises one or more of a modulus of the material, a strength of the material, or a fracture toughness of the material” (page 8 teaches that the cohesive zone occurs when damage to the material occurs according to interfacial strength (τ0). Equations 8, 9, 10, 11 involve interfacial strength. Page 17: “… test was simulated with different levels of mesh refinement using the material properties shown in Table 4 and interfacial stiffness of K = 106 N/mm3. ).
Claim 26. Turon_2005 also makes obvious “wherein the threshold quantity is between three and five discrete and finite elements” (page 11: “… used between 2 and 5 elements in their simulations… 3 elements in the cohesive zone were sufficient…” NOTE: the claimed range of between 3 to 5 is within the range of between 2 to 5. Also, a second example is provided where 3 elements were used. 3 elements is inside the claimed range. Therefore, the art teaches two examples within the claimed range.).
Claim 27. Turon_2005 also makes obvious “further comprising: Determining the second number of discrete and finite elements in the release state form the numeric processes zone, wherein determining that the crack is beginning to form is based on the second number of discrete and finite elements in the release state forming the numeric process zone” (Fig. 15 clearly illustrates a cohesive zone with 5 elements,Page 10 - 11: “… in order to obtain accurate FEM results using CZM, the tractions in the cohesive zone must be represented properly by the finite element spatial discretization. The number of elements in the cohesive zone… when the cohesive zone is discretized by too few elements, the fracture energy is not represented accurately and the model does not capture the continuum field of a cohesive crack. Therefore, a minimum number of elements, Ne, is needed in the cohesive zone to get successful FEM results… Cornetti [29], suggest using more than 10 elements. However, Falk et al. [2] used between 2 and 5 elements in their simulations… in the parametric study of Davila and Camanho [30]… using equation (8)… 3 elements in the cohesive zone were sufficient to predict the propagation of the delamination…”
Additionally, Turon_2005 illustrates the cohesive zone in Fig. 5 shown below. Notice that the cohesive zone illustrates a plurality of finite elements.
PNG
media_image6.png
257
581
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Notice that the cohesive zone is formed by the finite elements.).
Claim 28. Turon_2005 also makes obvious “wherein the numeric process zone indicates an area at a tip of the crack, wherein a failure at that area is projected to enlarge the crack.” (Fig. 5, Fig. 10 NOTE: both figure 5 and 10 illustrate that the crack enlarges.)
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turon_2005 in view of Mi_1998 in view of Justusson_2020 in view of Akbulut_2011 (Design optimization of laminated composites using a new variant of simulated annealing, Computers and Structures 89 (2011) 1712 – 1724).
Claim 20. Turon_2005 makes obvious “modeling the crack propagation, the crack propagation growth rate the release response (Fig. 10 illustrates various finite elements in crack state, release state, and undamaged state; Fig. 15 illustrates the stress relationship of respective discrete and finite elements along with the associated elements in crack state, release state, and undamaged state; page 9: “… crack propagation occurs when the energy release rate reaches a critical value Gc. The CZM approach prescribes the interfacial normal and shear tractions that resist separation and relative sliding at an interface. The tractions, integrated to complete separation, yield the fracture energy release rate, Gc. The length of the cohesive zone Lcz is defined as the distance from the crack tip to the point where the maximum cohesive traction is attained (see Figure 5)…”)
Justusson_2020 makes obvious to model crack propagation “across a plurality of failure modes” (abstract: “… the method includes evaluating failure modes…”; FIG. 4 block 414: “evaluate failure modes of the one or more bonded structures based on a solution to the finite element analysis model…”; par 3: “… the method further includes evaluating failure modes…” par 37: “… evaluating the failure modes of the bonded structure 102 includes determining a load 164 associated with initiation of a failure… determining a length 166 of propagation of the failure, or a combination thereof…”).
paragraph 38 of Justusson_2020 teaches “in some implementations, the system 100 performs additional operations based on determination of the failure modes… in a particular implementation, if the load 164 fails to satisfy (e.g., is less than) a threshold, the processor 130 issues a command to… terminate a manufacturing process. Alternatively, if the load 164 satisfies (e.g., is greater than or equal to) the threshold, the processor 130 issues a command to initiate the manufacturing process… similar operations can be performed based on the length 166 or other information associated with the determined failure mode…” which might properly be found to make obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to identify one or more physical modifications to the component because the implication of the above teachings is that a component should only be manufactured if the design meets failure mode criteria and one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that if a design does not meet criteria that it should be redesigned/modified until it meets criteria.
Turon_2005 and Justusson_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called delamination analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Turon_2005 with the computer of Justusson_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to perform analysis/simulation/prediction of delamination using finite element method and to use commercially available software known as Abaqus (page 16: “… the FEM model… the decohesion elements were implemented using a user-written subroutine in the finite-element code ABAQUS… three sets of simulations were performed…”) and Justusson_2020 teaches a computer is capable of performing finite element analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Turon_2005 with the computer of Justusson_2020 for the benefit of executing the ABAQUS computer software on a computer to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Turon_2005 nor Mi_1998 nor Justusson_2020 do not explicitly teach “and identify one or more physical modifications to the component to increase a safety factor associated with the component based on the modeling.”
Akbulut_2011; however, makes obvious “and identify one or more physical modifications to the component to increase a safety factor associated with the component based on the modeling” (abstract: “the aim of this study is to minimize the thickness (or weight) of laminated composite plates subject to both in-plane and out-of-plane loading… optimize the lay-up design…”; page 1712: “… in order to evaluate the objective and constraint functions and thus estimate the structural performance of the candidate optimal designs generated during the optimization process, structural analysis of the laminate should be carried out. The most frequently adopted approach is to use… finite element method…”; page 1717: “… of these designs, the optimum is defined as the one with the largest failure load… as another approach, the margins to initial failure were maximized for the minimum feasible number of laminae… search for the globally optimum laminate designs…”;page 1719 section 4.1: “… table 1 shows the optimal design obtained by applying the aforementioned optimization procedure… if the Tsai-Wu and maximum stress criteria are used together, the optimal lay-up design agrees with the empirical observations; i.e., a laminate under uniaxial loading is strongest… Table 2 shows the optimal designs… the safety factor is 1.0325. the optimal designs, on the other hand, have a higher safety factor. When both criteria are used, the optimal design has a safety factor (1.1124)… the safety factor based on the maximum stress criterion is larger (1.0123 in comparison to 1.0115) even though its weight wi Eq (22), is very small…”).
Turon_2005 nor Mi_1998 nor Justusson_2020 and Akbulut_2011 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called laminates and or simulations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Justusson_2020 and Akbulut_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been Justusson_2020 teaches not to manufacture a lamination If its failure mode is below a threshold and Akbulut_2011 teaches to optimize laminates for the purpose of improving their performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the failure mode analysis of Justusson_2020 with the design optimization that increase safety factor as taught by Akbulut_2011 for the benefit of ensuring that the design can withstand failure mode requirements before manufacturing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Additionally, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Akbulut_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to use finite elements to simulate failure mode known as delamination and teaches that “the delamination failure mode is particularly important for the structural integrity of composite structures because it is difficult to detect during inspection (Turon_2005 page 1 par 1). Akbulut_2011 teaches to evaluate failure modes and to optimize laminate designs to make the designs stronger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the delamination failure mode analysis taught by Turon_2005 with the design optimization that increase safety factor as taught by Akbulut_2001 for the benefit of ensuring that the design can withstand delamination failures which are important to structural integrity and are hard to detect during inspection to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turon_2005 in view of Mi_1998 in view of Justusson_2020 in view of Akbulut_2011 in view of Svensson_2015 (Fatigue Analysis with Loads from MBS, Master of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2015).
Claim 7, 14. Turon_2005 makes obvious “modeling the crack propagation, the crack propagation growth rate and the respective release responses (page 9: “… crack propagation occurs when the energy release rate reaches a critical value Gc. The CZM approach prescribes the interfacial normal and shear tractions that resist separation and relative sliding at an interface. The tractions, integrated to complete separation, yield the fracture energy release rate, Gc. The length of the cohesive zone Lcz is defined as the distance from the crack tip to the point where the maximum cohesive traction is attained (see Figure 5)…”; page 3: “… several simulations of specimens with and without initial cracks were performed, in order to demonstrate that the methodology proposed can accurately predict both crack initiation and propagation…”; page 14 - 15: “… Under mixed-mode loading… components of the energy release rate need to be used to predict crack propagation. The constitutive damage model used here, formulated in the context of Damage Mechanics (DM), was previously proposed by the authros [11]. [12]. All the details of the constitutive model are presented in references [11] and [12]… the formulation presented in previous references is adapted to use the decohesion elements… and a fracture mechanics-based criterion is used to predict crack propagation.. energy per unit surface of the damaged and undamaged interface… displacement… the evolution of damage is defined by G…”; Fig. 15 “delamination propagation” and “evolution of stresses during delamination onset and propagation”) across a plurality of loading modes wherein the plurality of loading modes includes one or more of , and impact load Page 2: “… delamination may arise under various circumstances, such as low velocity impacts, or bearing loads in structural joints…”; page 8: “… under single-mode loading, interface damage initiates at a point where the traction reaches the maximum normal interface strength… for mixed-mode loading, interface damage onset is predicted by a criterion established in terms of the normal and shear tractions…”; page 12: “… the interfacial strength is computed for each loading mode…”; page 15: “… fracture mechanics-based criterion is used to predict crack propagation… the parameter λ is the normal of the displacement jump tensor… and it is used to… define such concepts as ‘loading’, ‘unloading’ and ‘reloading’…”
EXAMINERS NOTES:
the above citation teaches both single-mode and mixed-mode loading which is a plurality of loading modes. The above citations also teach impact loads and bearing loads cause delamination.
While it may be properly found the one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that a bearing load is one that carries/endures/supports loads which are stationary/constant/static as opposed to impact loads which are necessarily dynamic, the citation does not explicitly recite “static load”.
Because the above citations teach loading, unloading, and reloading it may be properly found that one of ordinary skill in the art my infer a fatigue load because a fatigue load is one that repeatedly loads, unloads, and reloads; however, the citations do not explicitly recite “fatigue load.”).
Justusson_2020 also teaches “a plurality of loading modes” (abstract: “… the method includes evaluating failure modes…”; FIG. 4 block 414: “evaluate failure modes of the one or more bonded structures based on a solution to the finite element analysis model…”; par 3: “… the method further includes evaluating failure modes…” par 37: “… evaluating the failure modes of the bonded structure 102 includes determining a load 164 associated with initiation of a failure… determining a length 166 of propagation of the failure, or a combination thereof…”).
Turon_2005 and Justusson_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called delamination analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Turon_2005 with the computer of Justusson_2020.
The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to perform analysis/simulation/prediction of delamination using finite element method and to use commercially available software known as Abaqus (page 16: “… the FEM model… the decohesion elements were implemented using a user-written subroutine in the finite-element code ABAQUS… three sets of simulations were performed…”) and Justusson_2020 teaches a computer is capable of performing finite element analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Turon_2005 with the computer of Justusson_2020 for the benefit of executing the ABAQUS computer software on a computer to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Akbulut_2011 teaches “static load” (abstract: “… laminated composite plates subject to both in-plane and out-of-plane loading… considering static failure as the critical failure mode…”; page 1723 section 2.1: “… the objective is to minimize the laminate thickness, t, with the condition that it does not fail under the applied static loads…”).
Turon_2005 nor Mi_1998 nor Justusson_2020 and Akbulut_2011 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called laminates and or simulations. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Justusson_2020 and Akbulut_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been Justusson_2020 teaches not to manufacture a lamination If its failure mode is below a threshold and Akbulut_2011 teaches to optimize laminates for the purpose of improving their performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the failure mode analysis of Justusson_2020 with the design optimization that increase safety factor as taught by Akbulut_2011 for the benefit of ensuring that the design can withstand failure mode requirements before manufacturing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Additionally, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Akbulut_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to use finite elements to simulate failure mode known as delamination and teaches that “the delamination failure mode is particularly important for the structural integrity of composite structures because it is difficult to detect during inspection (Turon_2005 page 1 par 1). Akbulut_2011 teaches to evaluate failure modes and to optimize laminate designs to make the designs stronger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the delamination failure mode analysis taught by Turon_2005 with the design optimization that increase safety factor as taught by Akbulut_2001 for the benefit of ensuring that the design can withstand delamination failures which are important to structural integrity and are hard to detect during inspection to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
The combination of Turon_2005 and Mi_1998 and Justusson_2020 and Akbulut_2011; however, do not explicitly recite: “to bypass one or more testing processes associated with static and fatigue” nor wherein the loading modes include “fatigue load.”
Svensson_2015 makes obvious “to bypass one or more testing processes (page 11 section 1.1: “… the wish is to replace the physical measurements with loads acquired through simulations. Developing a completely virtual method would make it possible to perform analysis before a prototype vehicle is produced… it is believed that they can come to replace physical measurements within a near future. This would enable measurement of loads before physical prototypes are produced…”) associated with static and fatigue” and wherein the loading modes include “static load” and “fatigue load” (Abstract: “… therefore, there is a continuous drive to increase their capability to simulate… specifically fatigue… this thesis investigated the possibility of using loads derived from MBS simulations to perform fatigue analysis… the component was modeled in Abaqus… the component was then analyzed with different fatigue analysis methods…”; page 12 section 1.3 “… four methods… will be evaluated… fatigue analysis based on static loads (rule of thumb)…”; page 16 section 2.2 Fatigue The most common reason for failure in mechanical components and systems id fatigue. Fatigue is when repetitive loads act on a structure and eventually failure occurs. This happens even though the load is well below the load that the structure would have withstand for static loading… when fatigue occurs it is generally in the shape of a crack. The results of fatigue can be divided into three different steps, crack initiation, crack propagation and final failure…”; Page 56 section 3.4.2 Static Loads The analysis was started with the most basic method, a rule of thumb built on static load cases…” ).
Turon_2005 and Svensson_2015 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called crack propagation simulation/analysis. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Svensson_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches a method using finite element analysis to predict crack propagation. Svensson_2015 teaches to uses crack propagation analysis in order to replace physical measurements/testing to allow design analysis before making physical prototypes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the crack propagation method as taught by Turon_2005 with the Svensson_2015 virtual fatigue analysis based on static loads for the benefit of performing component analysis without needed to perform physical testing and measurement to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 30, 31, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turon_2005 in view of Mi_1998 in view of Justusson_2020 in view of Alshoaibi_2021 (Adaptive Finite Element Model for Simulating Crack Growth in the Presence of Holes, Materials, 9/10/2021).
Claim 30. Alshoaibi_2021 makes obvious “further comprising: identifying a crack growth rate based on projecting the crack progression; and determining that the crack growth rate meets a threshold” (page 1/23 introduction: “… fatigue represents the most common phenomenon of catastrophic structural failure on mechanical structure systems… Fatigue cracks in structural components, pipelines, aircraft fuselages, ships, marine structures, and other similar structures may cause significant damage and even catastrophic failures… allowing crack part of the crack growth to be included in the range of reasonable service life… monitored, and affected details fixed before the beginning of a critical structural failure… the design principle known as “damage tolerant design”, which relates to the components that are designed to operate with fatigue damage in a permissible limit…” NOTE: the “permissible limit” is a threshold for maintenance and repair. Page 9/23:
PNG
media_image17.png
433
657
media_image17.png
Greyscale
NOTE: the crack growth per cycle (da/dN) is a growth rate. When the stress intensity at the crap tip exceeds a threshold the crack grows. Therefore, a crack growth is based on the crack progression per cycle where the crack grows when stress is above a threshold and maintenance is required when damage, due to crack growth, is above the permissible limit threshold. ).
Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called cracks/delamination. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to simulate cracks/delamination using finite element method and Alishoaibi_2021 teaches that you can simulate cracks/delamination with finite element method and also to have damage tolerant design in which crack growth is monitored and affected details of the component are fixed before fatigue damage exceeds a permissible limit based on crack growth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021 for the benefit of simulating/predicting when fixes are needed due to fatigue cracks so that the part doesn’t have a catastrophic failure to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 31. Alshoaibi_2021 makes obvious “further comprising: scheduling maintenance for the component based on the crack growth rate meeting the threshold” (page 1/23 introduction: “… fatigue represents the most common phenomenon of catastrophic structural failure on mechanical structure systems… Fatigue cracks in structural components, pipelines, aircraft fuselages, ships, marine structures, and other similar structures may cause significant damage and even catastrophic failures… allowing crack part of the crack growth to be included in the range of reasonable service life… monitored, and affected details fixed before the beginning of a critical structural failure… the design principle known as “damage tolerant design”, which relates to the components that are designed to operate with fatigue damage in a permissible limit…” NOTE: the “permissible limit” is a threshold for maintenance and repair
Claim 29. Alshoaibi_2021 makes obvious further comprising: Identifying that a quantity of discrete and finite elements are in the crack state at the second time based on a quantity of release response corresponding to the quantity of discrete and finite elements; and modeling, based on identifying that the quantity of discrete and finite elements are in the crack state, one or more of: a crack propagation growth rate, a crack propagation (page 9/23: “… crack growth per cycle… crack growth rate and corresponding equivalent stress intensity factor is represented as follows… equation 20…”), a crack direction, or a crack trajectory” (page 2/23: “.. predicting both initiation and propagation of crack trajectory…” page 7/23: “… crack growth path trajectory…”; page 12/23 Case 1: “… the simulated crack growth trajectory as predicted by the developed program… the anticipated trajectories…”; Figure 9, 10, 11).
Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called cracks/delamination. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been that Turon_2005 teaches to simulate cracks/delamination using finite element method and Alishoaibi_2021 teaches that you can simulate cracks/delamination with finite element method and also to have damage tolerant design in which crack growth is monitored and affected details of the component are fixed before fatigue damage exceeds a permissible limit based on crack growth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Turon_2005 and Alshoaibi_2021 for the benefit of simulating/predicting when fixes are needed due to fatigue cracks so that the part doesn’t have a catastrophic failure to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turon_2005 in view of Mi_1998 in view of Justusson_2020 in view of Alshoaibi_2021 in view of Wilson_2018 (7.20 Structural Health Monitoring of Composites, Elsevier 2018).
Claim 32. Wilson_2018 makes obvious “further comprising: informing a user of the crack growth rate based on the crack rate meeting the threshold” (page 383 section 7.20.2.1: “… the aim is not simply to detect structural failure, but also provide an indication of physical damage at the earliest possible time to define remedial strategies before the structural damage leads to safety-critical events and catastrophic failure… condition-based maintenance… the concept of condition-based maintenance is that a sensing system on the structure will monitor the system response and notify the operator that damage as been detected…”).
Alshoaibi_2021 and Wilson_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called structural health. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Alshoaibi_2021 and Wilson_2018. The rationale for doing so would have been that Alshoaibli_2021 teaches to monitor and fix critical structural failures using the design principle called “damage tolerant design” which monitors for crack growth within permissible limits (i.e., a threshold) and Wilson_2018 teaches to use condition-based maintenance where the monitoring will notify an operator that damage is detected upon the damage condition occurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the thresholds of the damage tolerant design taught by Alshoaibi_2021 with condition-based maintenance notifications taught by Wilson_2018 for the benefit of notifying an operator about the need for maintenance when the damage tolerance condition limit/threshold is exceeded and avoid catastrophic failure to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-4276. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights