DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 – 15 and 18 – 24 have been presented for examination. Claims 1 – 3 and 7 and 11 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 8 – 9 and 16 – 17 are cancelled. Claims 21 – 24 are new.
Response to Rejection under 35 U.S.C §101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that these features, in combination with the other features of the claims, are directed to a particular technological solution to a technological problem and, when considered as a whole, integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(d).”
Applicant points to the amended “applying a tensile load” and “capturing experimental data” amendments as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that the limitations are recited as part of “modeling failure”, and that the steps do not in any meaningful way directly further limit a modeling step (i.e., the experimental data is not positively recited as being used in the modeling). Therefore, the “applying” and “capturing experimental data” are interpreted as potentially being performed separately from the modeling under the broadest reasonable interpretation, which can be achieved through mental process using observations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). Further, the “applying” and “capturing experimental data” steps are insignificant data gathering comprising well-known data gathering steps (see Jack (376) Paragraph 3).
Response to Comments regarding 35 U.S.C §112(f)
Applicant does not dispute the invocation of 112(f), and there was no 112(a) or 112(b) rejection related to lack of sufficient structure for the recited “the computing system configured for performing a set of acts comprising in claim 11”. Therefore, the invocation is maintained.
Response to Rejection under 35 U.S. C § 103 based on BIANCHI, KUMAR. and DIEHL
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive. Examiner notes that the instant claims recite at least new limitations “applying” and “capturing experimental data” which necessitate a new grounds of rejection over Jack et al. (US 2021/0302376) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103).
Applicant argues: “
PNG
media_image1.png
462
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
61
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Applicant argues that Bianchi (Cohesive) does not teach the amended limitations comprising a first and second bi-linear model (see emphasis in Applicant’s remarks above). Examiner respectfully disagrees since Bianchi (Cohesive) explicitly teaches a meso-scale force displacement curve based on two bi-linear traction-separation curves for pinned and unpinned laminate areas, respectively (see Figure 2). Bianchi (Cohesive) further teaches deriving a traction-separation curve directly from a force-displacement curve (see Figure 7). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the computing system configured for performing a set of acts comprising in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Looking to the disclosure, a computing system comprises generic computing hardware and software (see the instant application paragraph 42).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 – 15 and 18 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1 (and similarly claim 11 and 19), it recites “modeling failure of a through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within the composite structure, wherein modeling the failure comprises: applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement”. It is unclear how modeling failure utilizes the captured experimental data since a model is mathematical (i.e., the later recited “finite element analyzer”) and captured experimental data is tangible (i.e., “a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior”). Specifically, “modeling” and “capturing experimental data” are fundamentally different approaches for representing said failure, and are not positively linked in any way in the instant claims. Examiner acknowledges that a model could be based on experimental data, however, this is not positively recited not required by the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as a distinct “modeling” step in combination with a set of distinct “applying” and “capturing” steps.
With regard to claims 2 – 7, 10, 12 – 15, 18 and 20 – 24, they are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting additional limitations to overcome the deficiency.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for designing a composite structure, the method comprising: modeling failure of a through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within the composite structure, wherein modeling the failure comprises; determining, based on the modeling, analytical material properties indicative of an effective fracture behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement reinforcing the interface, wherein the analytical material properties comprise a penalty stiffness, a cohesive strength, a first strain energy release rate of the interface without the through-thickness reinforcement, and a second strain energy release rate of the through-thickness reinforcement; generating a finite element model for the composite structure, wherein the finite element model represents the through-thickness reinforcement using the cohesive formulation; analyzing a mechanical performance of the composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the finite element model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “modeling” and “determining” and “analyzing” amounts to analytical actions recited at a high-level of generality and requires no more than judgement and evaluations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 regarding the “modeling” in combination with the “applying” and “capturing”). The “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement; obtaining data defining a cohesive formulation within a finite element analyzer, wherein the cohesive formulation is representative of the through-thickness reinforcement, the data defining the cohesive formulation is derived from the analytical material properties, the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying an N-linear traction-separation curve, and the N-linear traction-separation curve is based on a first bi-linear model associated with the first strain energy release rate and a second bi-linear model associated with the second strain energy release rate; outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the composite structure. The “applying” and “capturing” covers insignificant data gathering since it recites steps since it covers extra-solution activity that is not explicitly linked to the “modeling” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The “obtaining” amount to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the claims recite obtaining data defining specific quantities (e.g., “cohesive formulation”, N-linear traction-separation curve”, etc.), however, the manner in which said data is obtained is wholly generic, and limiting the data obtained does not change transform the “obtaining data defining” from being wholly directed to data gathering. The “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “applying” and “capturing” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Jack (376) Paragraph 3). The recited “obtaining” and “outputting” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 10 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 modeling the failure of the through-thickness reinforcement within the composite structure using a local representative volume model; Claim 3 generating the finite element model comprises scaling a size of the cohesive formulation based on a proposed planar representation of the through-thickness reinforcement; Claim 4 adjusting a location, size, or orientation of the cohesive formulation so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 5 replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a different through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 6 the cohesive formulation is representative of a first type of through-thickness reinforcement, and the method further comprises: replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a second type of through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 7 wherein the determining the analytical material properties comprises determining one or more of the analytical material properties based at least on the interlaminar tension data and the double cantilever beam data; Claim 10 wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “modeling” and “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. The “adjusting” and “replacing” amounts to manipulating the resulting model(s), requiring no more than further judgements and evaluations. The “analyzing” and “determining” and “demonstrating” amounts to analytical processes that are recited at a high-level of generality and requiring no more than judgements and evaluations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 4 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 5 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 6 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 7 obtaining additional experimental data for the through-thickness reinforcement comprising interlaminar tension data and double cantilever beam data; Claim 8 wherein the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying a traction-separation response of the through-thickness reinforcement; Claim 9 wherein the data specifying the traction-separation response comprises data specifying an N-linear traction-separation curve. The “outputting” and “obtaining” amount to insignificant data outputting and gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted/received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “data defining the cohesive formulation comprises” and “wherein the data specifying the traction separation response comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it merely further limits the parent claim “obtaining” to specific data obtained. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “outputting” and “obtaining” and “data defining the cohesive formulation comprises” and “wherein the data specifying the traction separation response comprises” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) computing system configured for performing a set of acts comprising: modeling failure of a through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within a composite structure, wherein modeling the failure comprises; determining, based on the modeling, analytical material properties indicative of an effective fracture behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement reinforcing the interface, wherein the analytical material properties comprise a penalty stiffness, a cohesive strength, a first strain energy release rate of the interface without the through-thickness reinforcement, and a second strain energy release rate of the through-thickness reinforcement; generating a finite element model for the composite structure, wherein the finite element model represents the through-thickness reinforcement using the cohesive formulation; analyzing a mechanical performance of the composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the finite element model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “modeling” and “determining” and “analyzing” amounts to analytical actions recited at a high-level of generality and requires no more than judgement and evaluations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 regarding the “modeling” in combination with the “applying” and “capturing”). The “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: generic computer hardware as the structure of the computing system (see Claim Interpretation); applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement;
obtaining data defining a cohesive formulation within a finite element analyzer, wherein the cohesive formulation is representative of the through-thickness reinforcement, the data defining the cohesive formulation is derived from the analytical material properties, the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying an N-linear traction-separation curve, and the N-linear traction-separation curve is based on a first bi-linear model associated with the first strain energy release rate and a second bi-linear model associated with the second strain energy release rate; outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the composite structure. The “generic computer hardware” are incorporated into the claim at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “applying” and “capturing” covers insignificant data gathering since it recites steps since it covers extra-solution activity that is not explicitly linked to the “modeling” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The “obtaining” amount to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the claims recite obtaining data defining specific quantities (e.g., “cohesive formulation”, N-linear traction-separation curve”, etc.), however, the manner in which said data is obtained is wholly generic, and limiting the data obtained does not change transform the “obtaining data defining” from being wholly directed to data gathering. The “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “generic computer hardware” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “applying” and “capturing” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Jack (376) Paragraph 3). The recited “obtaining” and “outputting” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “outputting” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 12 generating the finite element model comprises scaling a size of the cohesive formulation based on a proposed planar representation of the through-thickness reinforcement; Claim 13 adjusting a location, size, or orientation of the cohesive formulation so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 14 replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a different through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 15 the cohesive formulation is representative of a first type of through-thickness reinforcement, and the method further comprises: replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a second type of through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 18 wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “modeling” and “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. The “adjusting” and “replacing” amounts to manipulating the resulting model(s), requiring no more than further judgements and evaluations. The “analyzing” and “determining” and “demonstrating” amounts to analytical processes that are recited at a high-level of generality and requiring no more than judgements and evaluations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 13 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 14 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 15 outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure; Claim 16 wherein the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying a traction-separation response of the through-thickness reinforcement; Claim 17 wherein the data specifying the traction-separation response comprises data specifying an N-linear traction-separation curve. The “outputting” and “obtaining” amount to insignificant data outputting and gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted/received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “data defining the cohesive formulation comprises” and “wherein the data specifying the traction separation response comprises” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it merely further limits the parent claim “obtaining” to specific data obtained. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “outputting” and “obtaining” and “data defining the cohesive formulation comprises” and “wherein the data specifying the traction separation response comprises” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that are executable to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising: modeling failure of a through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within a composite structure, wherein modeling the failure comprises; determining, based on the modeling, analytical material properties indicative of an effective fracture behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement reinforcing the interface, wherein the analytical material properties comprise a penalty stiffness, a cohesive strength, and a first strain energy release rate of the interface without the through-thickness reinforcement, and a second strain energy release rate of the through-thickness reinforcement; generating a finite element model for the composite structure, wherein the finite element model represents the through-thickness reinforcement using the cohesive formulation; analyzing a mechanical performance of the composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the finite element model. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “modeling” and “determining” and “analyzing” amounts to analytical actions recited at a high-level of generality and requires no more than judgement and evaluations (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 regarding the “modeling” in combination with the “applying” and “capturing”). The “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that are executable to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising; applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement; obtaining data defining a cohesive formulation within a finite element analyzer, wherein: the cohesive formulation is representative of the through-thickness reinforcement, the data defining the cohesive formulation is derived from the analytical material properties, the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying an N-linear traction-separation curve, and the N-linear traction-separation curve is based on a first bi-linear model associated with the first strain energy release rate and a second bi-linear model associated with the second strain energy release rate; outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the composite structure. The “generic computer hardware” are incorporated into the claim at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “applying” and “capturing” covers insignificant data gathering since it recites steps since it covers extra-solution activity that is not explicitly linked to the “modeling” (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The “obtaining” amount to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is received (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Specifically, the claims recite obtaining data defining specific quantities (e.g., “cohesive formulation”, N-linear traction-separation curve”, etc.), however, the manner in which said data is obtained is wholly generic, and limiting the data obtained does not change transform the “obtaining data defining” from being wholly directed to data gathering. The “outputting” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “non-transitory computer-readable medium” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The “applying” and “capturing” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see Jack (376) Paragraph 3). The recited “obtaining” and “outputting” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “outputting” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 - 24 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 20 generating the finite element model comprises scaling a size of the cohesive formulation based on a proposed planar representation of the through-thickness reinforcement. Claim 21 adjusting a location, size, or orientation of the cohesive formulation so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 22 replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a different through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 23 the cohesive formulation is representative of a first type of through-thickness reinforcement, and replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a second type of through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; Claim 24 wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “generating” covers modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality such that they are not precluded from being performed in the mind using judgements and evaluations resulting in one or more models. The “adjusting” and “replacing” amounts to manipulating the resulting model(s), requiring no more than further judgements and evaluations. The “analyzing” and “demonstrating” amounts to analytical processes that are recited at a high-level of generality and requiring no more than judgements and evaluations. The ”is representative of a first type” does not change the character of the later recited “replacing” in claim 23 and substantially similar to claim 22 which recites a “different” cohesive formulation. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7 ,11, 13 – 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. “A cohesive zone model for predicting delamination suppression in z-pinned laminates” (henceforth “Bianchi (Cohesive)”) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2016/0103939) (henceforth “Kumar (939)”), and further in view of Diehl, T. “On using a penalty-based cohesive-zone finite element approach, Part I: Elastic solution benchmarks” (henceforth “Diehl (Part I)”), and further in view of Jack et al. (US 2021/0302376) (henceforth “Jack (376)”). Bianchi (Cohesive) and Kumar (939) and Diehl (Part I) and Jack (376) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of analyzing the mechanical behavior of composite structures, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of composite structures.
With regard to claim 1, Bianchi (Cohesive) teaches a method for designing a composite structure, the method comprising: (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract a model is used to predict delamination of a composite which is usable for design)
modeling failure of a through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within the composite structure, wherein modeling the failure comprise: (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract cohesive zone modeling is used for modeling z-pin reinforced beam (modeling through-thickness reinforcement that reinforces an interface within a composite structure) “This paper presents a cohesive zone model based finite element analysis of delamination resistance of z-pin reinforced double cantilever beam (DCB).”, and Page 3, Bottom the CZM can be used for failure modeling “The CZM approach is different from the classic fracture mechanics, postulating that crack initiation and growth is no longer a sudden or abrupt event, but a gradual degradation process of the material ahead of the crack tip until complete failure”)
determining, based on the modeling, analytical material properties indicative of an effective fracture behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement reinforcing the interface, wherein the analytical material properties comprise (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract z-pin force characteristics are modeled (behavior of a through-thickness reinforcement reinforcing the interface) “When a delamination crack propagates, z-pins provide traction forces that restrict the crack opening displacement and increase the fracture toughness”)
a cohesive strength, and (Bianchi (Cohesive) Page 5 interface cohesion is included “The debonding phase starts as soon as the maximum shear stress reaches the shear strength of the bond interface”)
a first strain energy release rate of the interface without the through-thickness reinforcement, and a second strain energy release rate of the through-thickness reinforcement; (Bianchi (Cohesize) Page 2 G_c is strain energy release rate of the unpinned laminate (of the interface without the through-thickness reinforcement) and G_c^pin is of the z-pins (of the through-thickness reinforcement)
PNG
media_image3.png
402
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
obtaining data defining a cohesive formulation within a finite element analyzer, (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract “This paper presents a cohesive zone model based finite element analysis of delamination resistance of z-pin reinforced double cantilever beam (DCB).”)
the data defining the cohesive formulation comprises data specifying a N-linear traction-separation curve (Bianchi (Cohesive) Figure 2 a force meso-scale force displacement curve is obtained, and Figure 7 traction separation curve is derived directly from force-displacement relation
PNG
media_image4.png
474
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
the N-linear traction-separation curve is based on a first bi-linear model associated with the first strain energy release rate and a second bi-linear model associated with the second strain energy release rate; (Bianchi (Cohesive) Figure 2 a meso-scale force displacement curve represents the combination of (N-linear traction-separation curve is based on) a z-pin traction-separation curve (associated with first strain energy release rate) and the laminate traction-separation curve (associated with second strain energy release rate)
PNG
media_image5.png
376
865
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and Page 11, Bottom both pinned and unpinned laws are used for the model to include bridging phenomenon transition between unpinned and pinned areas “Two separate cohesive laws are employed: one for the pins locations and another for the unpinned areas. It has enabled modelling the large scale bridging phenomenon manifested by z-pinned laminates”)
generating a finite element model for the composite structure; analyzing a mechanical performance of the composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the finite element model; and (Bianchi (Cohesive) Figure 9 finite element model of z-pins
PNG
media_image6.png
374
485
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the composite structure. (Bianchi (Cohesive) Figure 10 resulting force relationships (mechanical performance) are simulated
PNG
media_image7.png
261
485
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
Bianchi (Cohesive) does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the cohesive formulation is representative of the through-thickness reinforcement, and wherein the data defining the cohesive formulation is derived from the analytical material properties; wherein the finite element model represents the through-thickness reinforcement using the cohesive formulation;
However, Kumar (939) teaches:
obtaining data defining a cohesive formulation within a finite element analyzer, wherein the cohesive formulation is representative of the through-thickness reinforcement, and wherein the data defining the cohesive formulation is derived from the analytical material properties; (Kumar (939) Abstract a representative material volume can be inserted to represent a desired composite region, where the desired region could be the through-thickness reinforcement “The example embodiment may also involve identifying a virtual material model of one or more plies of the tangible composite laminate. The virtual material model may be associated with characteristics that match the representations of the one or more plies of the tangible composite laminate. The example embodiment may further involve updating the model by replacing the representations, in the model, of the one or more plies of the tangible composite laminate with the virtual material model”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) with the method of virtual material finite element modeling of a composite material disclosed by Kumar (939). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the computational cost of the modeling (Kumar (939) Paragraph 3 “In the embodiments herein, some or all of the original laminate may be replaced by simpler new virtual material models. These virtual material models have the same constitutive relationship as the corresponding model ( e.g., a 2D plate model) of the original laminate, but use only a small fraction of the computational costs of 3D FEA”).
Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939) does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the analytical material properties comprise a penalty stiffness.
However, Diehl (Part I) teaches:
determining analytical material properties indicative of an effective fracture behavior of a through-thickness reinforcement, wherein the analytical material properties comprise a penalty stiffness (Deihl (Part I) Page 244, Left a penalty on a cohesive ductility is desirably adjusted during finite element simulation of structural properties (determining analytical material properties) “However, the smaller we set the penalty of cohesive ductility, delta_f (while keeping Gc a constant), the more the bond will behave like the benchmark.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939) with the method of penalty parameters during modeling disclosed by Diehl (Part I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze cracks in bonded structures (Diehl (Part I) Abstract “This paper develops and demonstrates a novel penalty methodology for enhancing the use of the cohesive-zone method (CZM) in finite element models to analyze crack initiation and propagation of surface-bonded structures.”)
Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I) does not appear to explicitly disclose: applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement.
However, Jack (376) teaches:
applying a tensile load to the composite structure using a testing machine, wherein the tensile load is applied in a direction normal to the interface; and (Jack (376) Paragraph 3 delamination is a force separating layers (tensile load applied in a direction normal to interface) “detect delamination between different layers of a material, or indicate the presence of other defects within the material”, and Paragraph 15 delamination is in the presence of a load (a testing machine) “a loading device that is capable of applying stress - loads to the bond”)
capturing experimental data using a computed tomography (CT) machine while the tensile load is applied to the composite structure, wherein the experimental data comprises a set of images depicting deformation and failure behavior of the through-thickness reinforcement; (Jack (376) Paragraph 200 “Instead , several studies have proposed the use of computed tomography (CT) imaging in order to determine ply orientation”, and Paragraph 3 X-rays (using a CT-machine) are used to detect the delamination (depicting deformation and failure behavior) “Traditional methods of NDT include … radiation ( including gamma , X - ray ,… used to detect surface flaws of a material , detect delamination between different layers of a material”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Parti I) with the failure experimental scanning disclosed by Jack (376). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform real-time monitoring of material defects (Jack (376) Abstract “highlighting defect areas within the 3 - D image in real time or near real time and providing data regarding each defect area, such as the depth, size, and / or type of each defect”).
With regard to claim 11, it recites the same steps as in claim 1, which is taught by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (376). Claim 11 further recites a computing system configured for performing a set of acts comprising (see Claim Interpretation).
Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I) teaches:
a computing system configured for performing a set of finite element modeling acts (Diehl (Part I) Page 244, Right “Most of the FE explicit dynamic models ran between 2 and 20 min on a 3.4 GHz Xeon processor running Windows XP”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939) with the method of penalty parameters during modeling disclosed by Diehl (Part I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze cracks in bonded structures (Diehl (Part I) Abstract “This paper develops and demonstrates a novel penalty methodology for enhancing the use of the cohesive-zone method (CZM) in finite element models to analyze crack initiation and propagation of surface-bonded structures.”)
With regard to claim 19, it recites the same steps as in claim 1, which is taught by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (376). Claim 19 further recites a computing system configured for performing a set of acts comprising (see Claim Interpretation).
Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I) teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein instructions that are executable to cause a computing system to perform finite element modeling functions (Diehl (Part I) Page 244, Right a processor includes the memory for temporarily storing instructions of the program it is running (computer-readable medium having instructions) “Most of the FE explicit dynamic models ran between 2 and 20 min on a 3.4 GHz Xeon processor running Windows XP”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939) with the method of penalty parameters during modeling disclosed by Diehl (Part I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze cracks in bonded structures (Diehl (Part I) Abstract “This paper develops and demonstrates a novel penalty methodology for enhancing the use of the cohesive-zone method (CZM) in finite element models to analyze crack initiation and propagation of surface-bonded structures.”)
With regard to claim 2, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches: wherein modeling the failure of the through-thickness reinforcement comprises:
modeling the failure of the through-thickness reinforcement within the composite structure using a local representative volume model (Bianchi (Cohesive) Page 4, Bottom the z-pin is represented by a model containing laws that match (local representative volume model) the experimental data “In some models, traction force exerted by z-pin is treated as a function of the displacement between the two surfaces of delamination crack whether or not the force is averaged over the bridging length. This bridging-law can be obtained from a single-pin pullout specimen by either experimental testing [4] or numerical modelling [27].”)
With regard to claim 4 and 13 and 21, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 11 and 19, and further teaches: adjusting a location, size, or orientation of the cohesive formulation so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; and outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure (Kumar (939) Abstract a representative material volume can be inserted to represent a desired composite region to replace one or more layers, where the number of layers replaced is adjustable (adjusting a location, size or orientation), and previous steps can be performed again with predictable results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) with the method of virtual material finite element modeling of a composite material disclosed by Kumar (939). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the computational cost of the modeling (Kumar (939) Paragraph 3 “In the embodiments herein, some or all of the original laminate may be replaced by simpler new virtual material models. These virtual material models have the same constitutive relationship as the corresponding model ( e.g., a 2D plate model) of the original laminate, but use only a small fraction of the computational costs of 3D FEA”).
With regard to claim 5 and 14 and 22, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 11 and 19, and further teaches: replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a different through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; and outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure. (Kumar (939) Abstract changing the through-thickness reinforcement modeled and repeating previous steps has wholly predictable results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) with the method of virtual material finite element modeling of a composite material disclosed by Kumar (939). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the computational cost of the modeling (Kumar (939) Paragraph 3 “In the embodiments herein, some or all of the original laminate may be replaced by simpler new virtual material models. These virtual material models have the same constitutive relationship as the corresponding model ( e.g., a 2D plate model) of the original laminate, but use only a small fraction of the computational costs of 3D FEA”).
With regard to claim 6 and 15, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 11, and further teaches: the cohesive formulation is representative of a first type of through-thickness reinforcement, and the method further comprises: replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a second type of through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; and outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure. (Kumar (939) Abstract changing the through-thickness reinforcement modeled and repeating previous steps has wholly predictable results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) with the method of virtual material finite element modeling of a composite material disclosed by Kumar (939). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the computational cost of the modeling (Kumar (939) Paragraph 3 “In the embodiments herein, some or all of the original laminate may be replaced by simpler new virtual material models. These virtual material models have the same constitutive relationship as the corresponding model ( e.g., a 2D plate model) of the original laminate, but use only a small fraction of the computational costs of 3D FEA”).
With regard to claim 7, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
obtaining experimental data for the through-thickness reinforcement comprising: (Bianchi (Cohesive) Page 4, Bottom the traction law used in the modeling can be obtained by experiment “In some models, traction force exerted by z-pin is treated as a function of the displacement between the two surfaces of delamination crack whether or not the force is averaged over the bridging length. This bridging-law can be obtained from a single-pin pullout specimen by either experimental testing [4] or numerical modelling [27].”)
interlaminar tension data and (Bianchi (Cohesive) Page 11 modeled interlaminar peel stresses are modeled, where peeling results in tension between layers (interlaminar tension data) “Fig. 14 shows the values of interlaminar peel stresses at the delamination plane during the steady crack growth stage at applied displacement d = 25 mm (for z-pin xparameter Ap=2%; d=0.51 mm)”)
double cantilever beam data, (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract “This paper presents a cohesive zone model based finite element analysis of delamination resistance of z-pin reinforced double cantilever beam (DCB).”)
wherein the determining the analytical material properties comprises determining one or more of the analytical material properties based at least on the interlaminar tension data and the double cantilever beam data. (Bianchi (Cohesive) Abstract “Computations were performed using a simplified unit strip model. Predicted delamination growth and load vs. displacement relation are in excellent agreement with the prediction by a complete model, and both models are in good agreement with test measured load vs. displacement relation”)
With regard to claim 23, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 19, and further teaches: the cohesive formulation is representative of a first type of through-thickness reinforcement, and replacing the cohesive formulation with a different cohesive formulation that is representative of a second type of through-thickness reinforcement so as to obtain a modified finite element model for a modified composite structure; analyzing the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure using the finite element analyzer and the modified finite element model; and outputting data indicative of the mechanical performance of the modified composite structure. (Kumar (939) Abstract changing the through-thickness reinforcement modeled and repeating previous steps has wholly predictable results)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) with the method of virtual material finite element modeling of a composite material disclosed by Kumar (939). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the computational cost of the modeling (Kumar (939) Paragraph 3 “In the embodiments herein, some or all of the original laminate may be replaced by simpler new virtual material models. These virtual material models have the same constitutive relationship as the corresponding model ( e.g., a 2D plate model) of the original laminate, but use only a small fraction of the computational costs of 3D FEA”).
Claims 3, 10, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375), and further in view of Bianchi, F. “Numerical Modelling of Through-Thickness Reinforced Structural Joints” (henceforth “Bianchi (Thesis)”). Bianchi (Cohesive) and Kumar (939) and Diehl (Part I) and Jack (375) and Bianchi (Thesis) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating the mechanical behavior of a composite materials, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulating material properties.
With regard to claims 3, 12 and 20, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 11 and 19, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: generating the finite element model comprises scaling a size of the cohesive formulation based on a proposed planar representation of the through-thickness reinforcement.
However, Bianchi (Thesis) teaches: generating the finite element model comprises scaling a size of the cohesive formulation based on a proposed planar representation of the through-thickness reinforcement. (Bianchi (Thesis) Figure 7.3 modeled z-pins
PNG
media_image8.png
432
769
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, and Page 139
PNG
media_image9.png
251
736
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) with the method of scaling values of the through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably analyze a through-thickness configuration (Bianchi (Thesis) Page 139).
With regard to claim 10 and 24, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 19, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure.
However, Bianchi (Thesis) teaches: wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure. (Bianchi (Thesis) Page 5 “There are two ways to satisfy the damage tolerance requirements: one, as already identified in its rudimental concept by the medieval Italian scientist, is to provide a fail-safe design, where at a partial structural failure load is safely redistributed over the rest of the structure causing the crack to stop (crack arrest) or by backup structures (multiple load path).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) with the method of providing a fail safe design disclosed by Bianchi (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably design a through-thickness configuration (Bianchi (Thesis) Page 5).
With regard to claim 18, Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 11, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure.
However, Bianchi (Thesis) teaches: wherein analyzing the mechanical performance of the composite structure comprises demonstrating a fail-safe damage arrest behavior of the composite structure or a slow damage growth behavior of the composite structure. (Bianchi (Thesis) Page 5 “There are two ways to satisfy the damage tolerance requirements: one, as already identified in its rudimental concept by the medieval Italian scientist, is to provide a fail-safe design, where at a partial structural failure load is safely redistributed over the rest of the structure causing the crack to stop (crack arrest) or by backup structures (multiple load path).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of finite element modeling of a composite material comprising through-thickness reinforcement disclosed by Bianchi (Cohesive) in view of Kumar (939), and further in view of Diehl (Part I), and further in view of Jack (375) with the method of providing a fail safe design disclosed by Bianchi (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably design a through-thickness configuration (Bianchi (Thesis) Page 5).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jevins et al. (US 2016/0108741) teaches a strain energy rate in a pinned and unpinned area of a laminate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights