DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 24-46 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-23 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a continuation of 16/913,403 filed 06/26/2020 now issued patent 11321508.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Examiner notes Applicants request to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance pending resolution of the other claim rejections. As such the double patenting rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) Applicants argue that the prior art Zhou does not recite “obtaining a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object;” as well as “using a fatigue model to enforce a fatigue safety factor constraint during an iterative modification of "a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases". With respect to the “obtaining a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object” the Examiner notes the recitation in Zhou in paragraph 55 of “the computer-readable program code means used to simulate the distribution of material properties cast component can be used with a fatigue model. Such a fatigue model may include code segments or modules to allow calculation of low cycle fatigue, high cycle fatigue (either in the form of single-axis or multi-axis variants) or other fatigue-related phenomena.” This section clearly recites the number of loading cycles as a high or low cycle which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the number recited. To further emphasize this point the next paragraph 56 recites “[0056] Referring again to FIG. 3, the following explains how data from MATGEN 160 can be used to conduct the fatigue analysis 170. At the outset, various types of material data are required in the current fatigue analysis 170 of structural components. Such data can be taken (for example) from material property database 150 discussed above. This data may include UTS, cyclic strength coefficient (K'), cyclic strength hardening exponent (n'), fatigue strength coefficient (.sigma.'.sub.f), fatigue strength exponent (b) and S-N curve data (which may include fatigue strengths at both ten thousand and ten million cycles).” This further recites the precise number of cycles for the load testing. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) With respect to the second limitation the Examiner notes that the precise recitation of the claim is recited as “iteratively modifying, by the computer program, a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises enforcing a fatigue safety factor constraint…” The Examiner notes therefore that the iterative modification is defined as the “enforcing a fatigue safety factor constraint.” As noted in the previous office action paragraph 55 of Zhou recites “Such a fatigue model may include code segments or modules to allow calculation of low cycle fatigue, high cycle fatigue (either in the form of single-axis or multi-axis variants) or other fatigue-related phenomena. Additional fatigue-related considerations may also be evaluated or otherwise taken into consideration, including critical shear planes and related maximum shear strain amplitude, damage factors, normal strain amplitude, shear stress amplitude, normal stress amplitude, hardening factors, fatigue strength coefficient, fatigue ductility coefficient, fatigue strength exponent, and a fatigue ductility exponent, non-proportionality value, microstructural, thermophysical, and mechanical properties, grain size, defect size, defect volume fraction, shear modulus value, Poisson ratio and Young's modulus values.” The underlined factors represent fatigue safety factor constraints which further read on the claimed “expected number of loading cycles is calculated from (i) a stress or strain value of the modeled object found in a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object, and (ii) data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles for one or more materials.” To emphasize this and the iterative aspect, two paragraphs later in paragraph 57 Zhou further recites “[0057] In a conventional fatigue analysis, an analyst is required to subjectively identify a connection between particular component locations and the material identifications and then adopt one of various procedures used in the analysis. Such procedures include conducting fatigue analysis one time with grouped node sets in the finished part FEA mesh based on the identified material. Material behaviors in such a procedure are inaccurately assumed to be the same for the nodes in each of the various zones. In another procedure, the fatigue analysis is run multiple times by assigning the same material property data to every node in the whole FEA mesh each time; by inaccurately assuming that every node is possessive of the same material behavior, this approach suffers from the same problem as the first one. Furthermore, such an approach would necessitate multiple analysis iterations as well as a concomitant increase in post-processing and reporting of the fatigue analysis results.” With respect to applicants arguments regarding a “finished part” the Examiner further notes “[0046] In the second of the two paths discussed above, a mesh of points or nodes for the finished cast part is created, characterized by nodal coordinates 120B with commonly non-cubic spatial geometry for FEA simulation. These finished part FEA mesh nodal coordinates 120B may be quite different than the casting FEA or FD mesh nodal coordinates 120A. For example, the finished part FEA mesh 120B includes nodal coordinate information of the component once all casting and post-casting operations have been performed.” This section emphasizes the finished and pre-finished nature of the part. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 24, 34, and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 13 of U.S. Patent Application No. 11,321,508. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the parent application as noted above. Claim 24 of the instant application is analyzed in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11321508 and analogous analysis would apply for claims 34 and 44 of the instant application in view of respective 11 and 13 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 24 of instant application
Claim 1 of patent 11321508
24. (New) A method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer program, one or more load cases and one or more design criteria for a modeled object, wherein the one or more design criteria comprise a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object;
iteratively modifying, by the computer program, a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases,
wherein the iteratively modifying comprises enforcing a fatigue safety factor constraint based on a comparison of the required number of loading cycles for the modeled object with an expected number of loading cycles, and the expected number of loading cycles is calculated from (i) a stress or strain value of the modeled object found in a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object, and (ii) data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles for one or more materials; and
providing, by the computer program, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure will be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object,
one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, and one or more specifications of material from which the physical structure will be manufactured, wherein the one or more design criteria comprise a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object for each of the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, and the one or more specifications comprise data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles;
iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, a generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, and the one or more specifications, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises performing numerical simulation of the modeled object in accordance with a current version of the three dimensional shape and the one or more in-use load cases to produce a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object,
finding a maximized stress or strain element, for each of the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, from the current numerical assessment of the physical response of the modeled object,
determining an expected number of loading cycles for each of the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure using the maximized stress or strain element and the data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles,
redefining a fatigue safety factor inequality constraint for the modeled object based on a damage fraction calculated from the required number of loading cycles for the modeled object and the expected number of loading cycles for each of the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure,
computing shape change velocities for an implicit surface in a level-set representation of the three dimensional shape in accordance with at least the fatigue safety factor inequality constraint,
updating the level-set representation using the shape change velocities to produce an updated version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and
repeating at least the performing, the finding, the determining, the redefining, the computing and the updating until a predefined number of shape modification iterations have been performed or until the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space converges to a stable solution for the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases; and
providing, by the computer aided design program, the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. Claims 24-25, 34-35, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120232858.
Regarding Claim 24: The reference discloses A method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer program, one or more load cases and one or more design criteria for a modeled object, wherein the one or more design criteria comprise a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object; (“[0055] In one embodiment, the computer-readable program code means used to simulate the distribution of material properties cast component can be used with a fatigue model. Such a fatigue model may include code segments or modules to allow calculation of low cycle fatigue, high cycle fatigue (either in the form of single-axis or multi-axis variants) or other fatigue-related phenomena. Additional fatigue-related considerations may also be evaluated or otherwise taken into consideration, including critical shear planes and related maximum shear strain amplitude, damage factors, normal strain amplitude, shear stress amplitude, normal stress amplitude, hardening factors, fatigue strength coefficient, fatigue ductility coefficient, fatigue strength exponent, and a fatigue ductility exponent, non-proportionality value, microstructural, thermophysical, and mechanical properties, grain size, defect size, defect volume fraction, shear modulus value, Poisson ratio and Young's modulus values.” See also “[0056] Referring again to FIG. 3, the following explains how data from MATGEN 160 can be used to conduct the fatigue analysis 170. At the outset, various types of material data are required in the current fatigue analysis 170 of structural components. Such data can be taken (for example) from material property database 150 discussed above. This data may include UTS, cyclic strength coefficient (K'), cyclic strength hardening exponent (n'), fatigue strength coefficient (.sigma.'.sub.f), fatigue strength exponent (b) and S-N curve data (which may include fatigue strengths at both ten thousand and ten million cycles).”
iteratively modifying, by the computer program, a three dimensional shape of the modeled object (“[0046] In the second of the two paths discussed above, a mesh of points or nodes for the finished cast part is created, characterized by nodal coordinates 120B with commonly non-cubic spatial geometry for FEA simulation. These finished part FEA mesh nodal coordinates 120B may be quite different than the casting FEA or FD mesh nodal coordinates 120A. For example, the finished part FEA mesh 120B includes nodal coordinate information of the component once all casting and post-casting operations have been performed.”) in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises enforcing a fatigue safety factor constraint based on a comparison of the required number of loading cycles for the modeled object with an expected number of loading cycles, and the expected number of loading cycles is calculated from (i) a stress or strain value of the modeled object found in a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object, and (ii) data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles for one or more materials; and (“[0055] The methods and articles of manufacture discussed herein that include computational routines, programs or simulations according to the present invention additionally may be configured to cooperate with or include computer-readable program code means to predict a fatigue life of an aluminum alloy under cyclic loading. For example, as discussed above, they may further include predicting the fatigue life of the aluminum alloy with the computer-based system according to processes of the computer-readable program code means. In one embodiment, the computer-readable program code means used to simulate the distribution of material properties cast component can be used with a fatigue model. Such a fatigue model may include code segments or modules to allow calculation of low cycle fatigue, high cycle fatigue (either in the form of single-axis or multi-axis variants) or other fatigue-related phenomena. Additional fatigue-related considerations may also be evaluated or otherwise taken into consideration, including critical shear planes and related maximum shear strain amplitude, damage factors, normal strain amplitude, shear stress amplitude, normal stress amplitude, hardening factors, fatigue strength coefficient, fatigue ductility coefficient, fatigue strength exponent, and a fatigue ductility exponent, non-proportionality value, microstructural, thermophysical, and mechanical properties, grain size, defect size, defect volume fraction, shear modulus value, Poisson ratio and Young's modulus values.” See also “[0057] In a conventional fatigue analysis, an analyst is required to subjectively identify a connection between particular component locations and the material identifications and then adopt one of various procedures used in the analysis. Such procedures include conducting fatigue analysis one time with grouped node sets in the finished part FEA mesh based on the identified material. Material behaviors in such a procedure are inaccurately assumed to be the same for the nodes in each of the various zones. In another procedure, the fatigue analysis is run multiple times by assigning the same material property data to every node in the whole FEA mesh each time; by inaccurately assuming that every node is possessive of the same material behavior, this approach suffers from the same problem as the first one. Furthermore, such an approach would necessitate multiple analysis iterations as well as a concomitant increase in post-processing and reporting of the fatigue analysis results.”)
providing, by the computer program, the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems. (“[0012] The output information from MATGEN can be read by a structural (including fatigue) analysis code or a computer-aided design (CAD) code (examples of which include FESAFE, ABAQUS or Hypermesh) to show the calculated properties at each node. In one example, the method of the current program can generate a Hypermesh visualization file by mapping the calculated material properties to an FEA mesh in a text format. This visualization file can then be read in to show the properties for each node, employing a readily-perceptible indicia, such as by color contours or the like. Similarly, MATGEN can also map the input DAS and porosity data onto an FEA mesh.” “[0060] While the bulk of the present disclosure pertains to simulating a casting, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that such simulation may be extended to any manufactured part.” Examiner Notes that this limitation represents an intended use for all limitations following “for use in…”)
Regarding Claim 25: The reference discloses The method of claim 24, wherein the one or more materials are two or more different materials, and the method comprises defining the fatigue safety factor constraint as a minimum of values calculated respectively for each of the two or more different materials. ([0042] “Such known material properties can be taken from a material property database (for example, in the form of a lookup table) that contains the measured or specified material properties for different alloys. This allows any location within the simulated engine block 300 (or any other component) to be calculated with a greater degree of accuracy than with a simulation that assumes constant or relatively constant material properties throughout.”)
Regarding Claim 34: The reference discloses A system comprising: a first computer communicatively coupled with a network, the first computer comprising a first non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer program stored thereon; and a second computer communicatively coupled with the network, the second computer comprising a second non-transitory storage medium having instructions of the computer program stored thereon; wherein the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the first and second computers to operate cooperatively to obtain one or more load cases and one or more design criteria for a modeled object, wherein the one or more design criteria comprise a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object, iteratively modify a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases, wherein the iterative modification comprises enforcement of a fatigue safety factor constraint based on a comparison of the required number of loading cycles for the modeled object with an expected number of loading cycles, and the expected number of loading cycles is calculated from (i) a stress or strain value of the modeled object found in a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object, and (ii) data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles for one or more materials, and provide the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems. (See rejection for claim 24)
Regarding Claim 35: The reference discloses The system of claim 34, wherein the one or more materials are two or more different materials, and the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the first and second computers to operate cooperatively to define the fatigue safety factor constraint as a minimum of values calculated respectively for each of the two or more different materials. (See rejection for claim 25)
Regarding Claim 44: The reference discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding a computer program operable to cause one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising: obtaining one or more load cases and one or more design criteria for a modeled object, wherein the one or more design criteria comprise a required number of loading cycles for the modeled object; iteratively modifying a three dimensional shape of the modeled object in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more load cases, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises enforcing a fatigue safety factor constraint based on a comparison of the required number of loading cycles for the modeled object with an expected number of loading cycles, and the expected number of loading cycles is calculated from (i) a stress or strain value of the modeled object found in a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object, and (ii) data relating fatigue strength to loading cycles for one or more materials; and providing the three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing a physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems. (See rejection for claim 24)
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 26-33, 36-43, and 45-46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving all intervening issues such as the double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 26 recites : The method of claim 25, wherein the one or more load cases comprise two or more load cases, and the method comprises calculating the values respectively for each of the two or more different materials by summing load-specific damage fractions corresponding to the two or more load cases, wherein each load-specific damage fraction comprises a number of expected loading cycles for a respective one of the two or more different materials, divided by the required number of loading cycles for the respective one of the two or more load cases.
Claim 33 recites: The method of claim 24, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises finding the stress or strain value of the modeled object by calculating a maximum stress value for each of the one or more load cases based on at least a standard deviation of a stress distribution in the current numerical assessment of the physical response of the modeled object.
Claim 36 recites: The system of claim 35, wherein the one or more load cases comprise two or more load cases, and the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the first and second computers to operate cooperatively to calculate the values respectively for each of the two or more different materials by summing load-specific damage fractions corresponding to the two or more load cases, wherein each load-specific damage fraction comprises a number of expected loading cycles for a respective one of the two or more different materials, divided by the required number of loading cycles for the respective one of the two or more load cases.
Claim 43 recites: The system of claim 34, wherein the instructions of the computer program are configured to cause the first and second computers to operate cooperatively to find the stress or strain value of the modeled object, during the iterative modification, by calculating a maximum stress value for each of the one or more load cases based on at least a standard deviation of a stress distribution in the current numerical assessment of the physical response of the modeled object.
Claim 45 recites: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44, wherein the one or more materials are two or more different materials, the operations comprise defining the fatigue safety factor constraint as a minimum of values calculated respectively for each of the two or more different materials, and the iteratively modifying comprises computing shape change velocities using a gradient determined from a shape derivative of an aggregated fatigue metric for the modeled object.
Claim 46 recites: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises finding the stress or strain value of the modeled object by calculating a maximum stress value for each of the one or more load cases based on at least a standard deviation of a stress distribution in the current numerical assessment of the physical response of the modeled object.
The closest prior art of record includes:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060009837 which teaches stress/strain calculation in conjunction with loading cycles to determine fatigue failure of a part.
U.S. Patent No. 8285522 which teaches the calculation and determination of cycles to failure for a device.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200124510 which teaches fatigue failure calculations based on “high cycle fatigue testing.”
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations in the dependent claims above, particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Claims 24-25, 34-35, and 44 are rejected.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060009837 which teaches stress/strain calculation in conjunction with loading cycles to determine fatigue failure of a part.
U.S. Patent No. 8285522 which teaches the calculation and determination of cycles to failure for a device.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200124510 which teaches fatigue failure calculations based on “high cycle fatigue testing.”
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights