DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on December 3, 2025.
Rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter are maintained.
Rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin (U.S. Pat. No. 11,416,646) in view of Bhattacharya, Graham, and/or Dufresne are withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 17-19, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0097624) in view of DeVore and Graham.
Rejection of claims 4, 12, 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin, Devore, Graham, and further in view of Adriano.
Rejection of claims 7, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of DeVore, Graham, and further in view of Dufresne.
Rejection of claims 8, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of DeVore, Graham, and further in view of Bhattacharya.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter, the Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments. As opposed to the assertions of the Applicant, the claims do not recite “a specific, technological solution to a technical problem in the field of electromagnetic effects (EME) analysis for aircraft,” Response at pg. 12, but instead generally recite “produce a computer-aided design (CAD) model” and “perform an engineering analysis…on the CAD model” without specific details as to how these steps are performed such that the claims recite a “specific, technological solution.” Although the Specification may detail improvements over existing technology, the solution that is proffered by the Specification is not embodied in the claims in a manner that makes it clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that recited invention results in those improvements.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the claimed judicial exceptions into a practical application and/or are significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Specifically, Applicant argues that “the claimed apparatus is configured for EME threat analysis in aircraft design.” Response at pg. 14. Examiner disagrees. The claim does not recite a specific hardware configuration that specifically performs the recite methods but instead recites generic “memory configured to store computer-readable code” and “processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code.” The method is then recited as being performed by the processing circuitry, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claims do not, for example, recite improvements in the functioning of a computer but instead recite using a computer as a tool to “perform engineering analysis.” Courts have found that such applications are not significantly more than the recited judicial exception and therefore are not patent eligible. See e.g., TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Regarding rejection of the claimed under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner agrees that Westin (U.S. Pat. No. 11,416,646) is disqualified prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, Westin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0097624) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it published on March 26, 2020, which is before the effective filing date of the present application (July 1, 2021). Further, because it published more than a year before the effective filing date, Westin cannot be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1). Accordingly, new rejections of the claims are asserted herein under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of additional prior art (as further detailed below).
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that generic computer components and extra-solution activities are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
An apparatus for analysis of electromagnetic effects (EME) on a structural section of an aircraft, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and
processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer- readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least:
produce a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the structural section of the aircraft including a plurality of ribs defining bays, with apertures in one or more of the bays and identifiers of designated routing of system wiring through the one or more of the bays;
perform an engineering analysis of the structural section based on the CAD model to determine electrical threshold values for locations for the one or more of the bays, which are related to an effect of electromagnetic radiation associated with an impact of an EME threat on the system wiring;
identify any of the locations at which an electrical threshold value exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with a keep-out distance relative to the system wiring; and
generate an output including information of those of the locations that are identified, and indicia for indicating a recommended modification to at least one of the designated routing, the system wiring or the one or more of the bays in order to address the EME threat.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Producing using a CAD program is a mental process that can be performed by a human because the general computer is used (as opposed to pencil and paper) in the “production” with the assistance of CAD. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III(C)(3) (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.”).
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
The limitation utilizes mathematical formulas and/or equations to perform “analysis,” which could include, for example, a finite element model. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
“Identifying” a location that conforms to particular criteria is a mental process because the identification can be performed using observation, judgment, and evaluation by a human. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III (“Accordingly, the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”).
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Generating a recommendation is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. For example, a human can generate a report that includes a recommendation based on reviewing the previously claimed analysis and identified locations (i.e., observation, evaluation, and opinion). See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
An apparatus for analysis of electromagnetic effects (EME) on a structural section of an aircraft, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and
processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer- readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least:
produce a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the structural section of the aircraft including a plurality of ribs defining bays, with apertures in one or more of the bays and identifiers of designated routing of system wiring through the one or more of the bays;
perform an engineering analysis of the structural section based on the CAD model to determine electrical threshold values for locations for the one or more of the bays, which are related to an effect of electromagnetic radiation associated with an impact of an EME threat on the system wiring;
identify any of the locations at which an electrical threshold value exceeds a predetermined threshold associated with a keep-out distance relative to the system wiring; and
generate an output including information of those of the locations that are identified, and indicia for indicating a recommended modification to at least one of the designated routing, the system wiring or the one or more of the bays in order to address the EME threat.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The only additional elements that are recited in the claim are generic computer components, which court have found do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites generate an EME model of the structural section from the CAD model; and generate a computational electromagnetics (CEM) model of the structural section from the EME model, and wherein the apparatus caused to perform the engineering analysis includes the apparatus caused to perform a CEM analysis in which the CEM model is exposed to a simulated EME threat that corresponds to the EME threat to predict an impact of the EME threat on the system wiring. A model utilizes mathematical formulas and/or equations to perform “analysis,” which could include, for example, a finite element model. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. The claim does not include additional elements and therefore does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the apparatus caused to generate the EME model includes the apparatus caused to assign digital representations of probes to individual ones of the bays represented in the EME model, and also thereby the CEM model, and wherein the apparatus caused to perform the CEM analysis includes the apparatus caused to use the probes to monitor electrical properties of the bays as the CEM model is exposed to the simulated EME threat. Assigning “digital probe representations” in a model can include identifying, in a model, the locations to “attach” a probe and attaching the representation in the model. Thus, the limitation can be performed by a human using a general computing device. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III(C)(3) (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process.”).
Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the digital representations of the probes are assigned with a user-defined probe density, and the apparatus caused to perform the CEM analysis further includes the apparatus caused to use the probes to determine spacing between ribs of the plurality of ribs. The claim merely specifies additional criteria for the “representations” of the probes assigned in claim 3, which is rejected for reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further generate at least one alternate routing of the system wiring based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternate routing. The limitation is directed to a mental process because, as in claim 1, a recommendation requires observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
identify portions of the designated routing at those of the locations that are identified at which the electrical threshold value exceeds the predetermined threshold;
The step is a mental process that requires observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Because the locations where the electrical threshold value is exceeded are identified is a mental process, identifying the routing is also a mental process. For example, a human can review a schematic of wiring of a structure and identify which portions of the wiring are located within an identified keep-away zone. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
generate corresponding alternate portions of routing for the portions of the designated routing that are identified, the corresponding alternate portions of routing repositioned to a modified location within the one or more bays based on the keep-out distance relative to the system wiring; and
Generating an alternate routing for wiring is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind and requires observation and judgment. A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine, based on electrical requirements of a structure, how to place wiring to avoid identified keep-out areas.
replace the portions with the corresponding alternate portions in the designated routing to thereby generate an alternate routing of the system wiring.
The limitation is post-solution activity that does not integrate the engineering analysis into a practical application. “The term ‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” MPEP 2106.05(g). See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”).
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further add bonds to one or more of the apertures through which the system wiring is passed according to the designated routing, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the bonds as added. The limitation is post-solution activity that does not integrate the engineering analysis into a practical application. “The term ‘extra-solution activity’ can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.” MPEP 2106.05(g). See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978) (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”).
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further generate at least one alternative predetermined threshold associated with the keep-out distance based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternative predetermined threshold. The claim merely indicates alternative input to the model, which requires transmitting data. The inputs are generated using either mathematical calculations and formulas or is a mental process that can include a user identifying information related to keep-out distances of wiring and providing the data. The transmitting of data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found that transmitting and receiving data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and further does not amount to significantly more. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 10-16
Claims 10-16 recite substantially the same imitations as claims 2-8. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 2-8, claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage media (i.e., generic computer hardware) that stores a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 18-24
Claims 18-24 recite substantially the same imitations as claims 2-8. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 2-8, claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westin, et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0097624, hereinafter “Westin”) in view of DeVore, et al., (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0285713, hereinafter “DeVore”), and Graham, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,437,688, hereinafter “Graham”).
Claim 1
Westin discloses:
An apparatus for analysis of electromagnetic effects (EME) on a structural section of an aircraft, the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer- readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least:
FIG. 8 illustrates an apparatus 800 according to some example implementations. Generally, an apparatus of exemplary implementations of the present disclosure may comprise, include or be embodied in one or more fixed or portable electronic devices. Examples of suitable electronic devices include a smartphone, tablet computer, laptop computer, desktop computer, workstation computer, server computer or the like. The apparatus may include one or more of each of a number of components such as, for example, processor 801 (e.g., processing circuitry) connected to a memory 802 (e.g., storage device). In some examples, the apparatus 800 implements the system 100. Westin at [0063].
produce a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the structural section of the aircraft
The CAD model generator 101 is configured to produce a CAD model of a structural product including component parts joined by fasteners. In some examples, the CAD model generator may be implemented in commercially-available software such as CATIA from Dassault Systèmes. Westin at [0033].
perform an engineering analysis of the structural section based on the CAD model to determine electrical threshold values for locations ;
At block 704, the method 700 includes performing a FDTD analysis on the FDTD model with the one or more electrical properties assigned, and with the FDTD model exposed to simulated lightning, to predict an impact of lightning on the fasteners and therefrom generate a corresponding prediction. Westin at [0061].
The “FDTD model” is based on the CAD model.
identify any of the locations at which an electrical threshold value exceeds a predetermined threshold
Different levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners can be shown by different marks or colors as indicated in the visual model. In one example, the impact of lightning may be indicated by current flow through the fasteners exposed to lightning. Westin at [0055].
generate an output including information of those of the locations that are identified, and
At block 705, the method includes producing an output based on the corresponding prediction that indicates one or more levels of the impact of lightning… Westin at [0061].
indicia for indicating a recommended modification
As shown, output can include a visual model 601 indicating one or more levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners of the structural product. Different levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners can be shown by different marks or colors as indicated in the visual model. In one example, the impact of lightning may be indicated by current flow through the fasteners exposed to lightning. For example, as shown in the visual model 601, the dotted lines 604 may indicate that the current flow through the fasteners located along the dotted lines are below a safety threshold thus no additional protection levels may be needed for the fasteners located along the dotted lines. The blocks 605 may indicate that the current flow through the fasteners located along the blocks are above a safety threshold such that additional protection levels may be provided to those fasteners located along the blocks. Westin at [0055].
Westin does not appear to disclose:
a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the structural section of the aircraft including a plurality of ribs defining bays, with apertures in one or more of the bays and identifiers of designated routing of system wiring through the one or more of the bays;
DeVore, which is analogous art, discloses:
a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the structural section of the aircraft including a plurality of ribs defining bays, with apertures in one or more of the bays and
As one example, the structural analysis method includes organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays, such as between individual ribs. The organizing includes directionally sorting the elements of the bays. In at least one embodiment, the organizing includes projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of the least variance between the centroids, determining strips within the bays based on the projecting, and determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips step. DeVore at [0012].
The flexibility of embodiments of the present disclosure allows virtually any structure (such as wing side of body and carry-through box of an aircraft) to be studied without any changes to the model analysis control unit, thereby greatly simplifying and accelerating iteration and exploration activities. Embodiments of the present disclosure provide automated, robust, repeatable, agile, and efficient structural analysis systems and methods. DeVore at [0035].
DeVore is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to modeling and analyzing aircraft components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a model as disclosed in DeVore with the analysis of Westin to result in a system that analyzes EME threats on an aircraft which takes into account bays and ribs of the aircraft. Motivation to combine includes greater accuracy and detail in the simulations by taking into account additional physical structures and arrangements of an aircraft, thereby improving the results that are obtained from the analysis, resulting in better wiring configurations.
Graham, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
a computer-aided design (CAD) model
CAD module 122 may include instructions used by processor 110 for establishing a system or machine design or creating a wiring diagram based on the system design. Although the term wiring diagram and wires are used throughout, it should be understood that a wire broadly means any element used for connecting one component to another, and a wiring diagram is a diagram illustrating the connections made between the components and the elements. Graham at col. 3, lines 10-17.
identify any of the locations at which
Next, guidelines are established (step 220)…Guidelines may include machine dependent guidelines, such as the geometry or footprint of the machine and locations of heat sources or edges. Guidelines may also include element-dependent guidelines, such as the wire bend radius limits and allowable proximity of wires or components to heat sources or edges. Further, guidelines may include component-dependent guidelines, such as the number of connections permitted on a particular component. Graham at col. 4, lines 33-55.
“Allowable proximity of wires or components to heat sources or edges” is analogous to a “keep-out distance.”
indicia for indicating a recommended modification to at least one of the designated routing, the system wiring or the one or more of the bays in order to address the
A harness is then designed based on the wiring diagram and the guidelines (step 230). The harness may include one or more wires, or may include one or more bundles, each including one or more wires. Routing design module 124 may automatically determine which wires are to be included in each bundle. Routing design module 124 may also determine the packing, or layout, of the bundles within the harness structure. Graham at col. 4, lines 57-63.
The “harness” is analogous to a modified wiring routing and/or system.
Graham is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to analyzing wiring to identify hazard within a keep-out distance from wiring. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the wiring “keep-out” distance analysis and rerouting suggestions of Graham with the EME analysis of Westin to result in a system that takes into account the location of wiring (in a manner similar to the fasteners that are analyzed in Westin) when determining an alternate route for the wiring. Motivation to combine includes reducing development time for an aircraft be providing output to an engineer instructing the engineer on where to locate wires in compliance with one or more guidelines, thus allowing the engineer to properly plan construction before commencing performance.
Claim 2
Westin discloses:
generate an EME model of the structural section from the CAD model; and generate a computational electromagnetics (CEM) model of the structural section from the EME model, and wherein the apparatus caused to perform the engineering analysis includes the apparatus
FIG. 5 illustrates a GUI that may be presented during production of a FDTD model of the structural product from the CAD model, according to various example implementations. In one example, the GUI in FIG. 5 may correspond to the illustration 313 in FIG. 3. The FDTD model may be an EME model. The process may be performed automatically to create a parameterized EME model in Patran. As shown, the CAD model 501 of the structural product, which may be produced according to the automated process described in FIG. 4, can be automatically converted to produce a FDTD model 502 in Patran. In some examples, a GUI 503 or window of a GUI may allow a user to select which component parts of the structural product (e.g., “Upper Skin” 504) to import to Patran for the conversion. In one example, as shown, the FDTD model may represent the component parts and fasteners of the structural product by a mesh of elements. In some examples, the process can auto-deletes phantom surfaces and fasteners created during Patran import. Westin at [0052].
caused to perform a CEM analysis in which the CEM model is exposed to a simulated EME threat that corresponds to the EME threat to predict an impact of the EME threat
The FDTD analyzer can be further configured to produce an output based on the corresponding prediction that indicates one or more levels of the impact of lightning on the fasteners, and that includes the identifiers of the fasteners that are traceable to respective ones of the structural definitions of the fasteners. The display device 104 can be configured to display the output to facilitate design or manufacture of the structural product. Westin at [0054].
Westin does not appear to disclose:
threat on the system wiring.
Graham discloses:
threat on the system wiring.
Next, guidelines are established (step 220)…Guidelines may include machine dependent guidelines, such as the geometry or footprint of the machine and locations of heat sources or edges. Guidelines may also include element-dependent guidelines, such as the wire bend radius limits and allowable proximity of wires or components to heat sources or edges. Further, guidelines may include component-dependent guidelines, such as the number of connections permitted on a particular component. Graham at col. 4, lines 33-55.
Motivation to combine includes identifying threats to wiring apparatuses and mitigating the threat by revising wiring configurations before constructing the components, thereby reducing development costs and resources.
Claim 3
Westin discloses:
wherein the apparatus caused to generate the EME model includes the apparatus caused to assign digital representations of probes
Attachment number (ATTACHMENT #) may be different for each fastener and may correspond to the simulated location and simulated exit path that create the highest maximum current threat for a particular fastener. The Curve # and Attachment Curve # may correspond to a unique identifier for the geometric representation of the fastener line geometry or the attachment line geometry within the EME model. Westin 2 at col. 11, lines 22-29.
The geometric representation is analogous to the structure of the aircraft, including the bays. Further, the attachments identify electromagnetic activity, thus analogous to probes.
Westin does not appear to disclose:
individual ones of the bays represented in the EME model
DeVore discloses:
individual ones of the bays represented in the EME model
As one example, the structural analysis method includes organizing the components, by the model analysis control unit, into bays, such as between individual ribs. The organizing includes directionally sorting the elements of the bays. In at least one embodiment, the organizing includes projecting centroids of the elements along a direction of the least variance between the centroids, determining strips within the bays based on the projecting, and determining a number of spanwise elements based on the determining the strips step. DeVore at [0012].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a model as disclosed in DeVore with the analysis of Westin to result in a system that analyzes EME threats on an aircraft which takes into account bays and ribs of the aircraft. Motivation to combine includes greater accuracy and detail in the simulations by taking into account additional physical structures and arrangements of an aircraft, thereby improving the results that are obtained from the analysis, resulting in better wiring configurations.
Claim 5
Westin and DeVore do not appear to disclose:
generate at least one alternate routing of the system wiring based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternate routing.
Graham discloses:
generate at least one alternate routing of the system wiring based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternate routing.
For example, if during the process the geometry or footprint of the machine is altered or the space allocated for the harness structure is changed, routing design module 124 may automatically make appropriate corrections to an existing harness design, thus making revisions much more efficient. Graham at col. 5, lines 16-21.
Revising the harness design is analogous to providing an alternate routing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the wiring “keep-out” distance analysis and rerouting suggestions of Graham with the EME analysis of Westin to result in a system that takes into account the location of wiring (in a manner similar to the fasteners that are analyzed in Westin) when determining an alternate route for the wiring. Motivation to combine includes reducing development time for an aircraft be providing output to an engineer instructing the engineer on where to locate wires in compliance with one or more guidelines, thus allowing the engineer to properly plan construction before commencing performance.
Claim 6
Westin and DeVore do not appear to disclose:
identify portions of the designated routing at those of the locations that are identified at which the electrical threshold value exceeds the predetermined threshold;
generate corresponding alternate portions of routing for the portions of the designated routing that are identified, the corresponding alternate portions of routing repositioned to a modified location within the one or more bays based on the keep-out distance relative to the system wiring; and
replace the portions with the corresponding alternate portions in the designated routing to thereby generate an alternate routing of the system wiring.
Graham discloses:
identify portions of the designated routing at those of the locations that are identified at which the electrical threshold value exceeds the predetermined threshold;
Next, guidelines are established (step 220)…Guidelines may include machine dependent guidelines, such as the geometry or footprint of the machine and locations of heat sources or edges. Guidelines may also include element-dependent guidelines, such as the wire bend radius limits and allowable proximity of wires or components to heat sources or edges. Further, guidelines may include component-dependent guidelines, such as the number of connections permitted on a particular component. Graham at col. 4, lines 33-55.
generate corresponding alternate portions of routing for the portions of the designated routing that are identified, the corresponding alternate portions of routing repositioned to a modified location within the one or more bays based on the keep-out distance relative to the system wiring; and
A harness is then designed based on the wiring diagram and the guidelines (step 230). The harness may include one or more wires, or may include one or more bundles, each including one or more wires. Routing design module 124 may automatically determine which wires are to be included in each bundle. Routing design module 124 may also determine the packing, or layout, of the bundles within the harness structure. Graham at col. 4, lines 57-63.
replace the portions with the corresponding alternate portions in the designated routing to thereby generate an alternate routing of the system wiring.
Systems and methods of the present invention also provide for a streamlined process in that results of the harness design process can be used for various aspects in actually preparing the physical harness. Graham at col. 5, lines 22-25.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the wiring “keep-out” distance analysis and rerouting suggestions of Graham with the EME analysis of Westin to result in a system that takes into account the location of wiring (in a manner similar to the fasteners that are analyzed in Westin) when determining an alternate route for the wiring. Motivation to combine includes reducing development time for an aircraft be providing output to an engineer instructing the engineer on where to locate wires in compliance with one or more guidelines, thus allowing the engineer to properly plan construction before commencing performance.
Claims 11 and 19
Claims 11 and 19 recite substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 3. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 3, claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of DeVore, Graham, and Adriano, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0044029, hereinafter “Adriano”).
Claim 4
Westin, DeVore, and Graham do not appear to disclose:
wherein the digital representations of the probes are assigned with a user-defined probe density, and the apparatus caused to perform the CEM analysis further includes the apparatus caused to use the probes to determine spacing between ribs of the plurality of ribs.
Adriano, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the digital representations of the probes are assigned with a user-defined probe density, and the apparatus caused to perform the CEM analysis further includes the apparatus caused to use the probes to determine spacing between ribs of the plurality of ribs.
In some implementations, user 190 can provide user input parameters 127, for example, selected surfaces and/or bodies of a part to be probed, a threshold of accuracy for the measurement, and/or whether the user 190 is interested in a part alignment and/or surface inspection of the part 177. Input parameters 127 can be utilized by a probe point optimizer 125 to generate an optimized set of probe points for the manufacturing system 170 to perform one or more operations, e.g., surface inspection and/or part alignment. Adriano at [0028].
Adriano is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to utilizing probes in the model to determine distances between components of the model. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the probe characteristics of Adriano with the probes disclosed in Westin to both measure the electrical properties of the bays of the aircraft but to also measure distances between the probes. Motivation to combine includes a reduction in requirements to set up the model by minimizing the number and distribution of the probes required to perform both electrical and spatial measurements when running an EME threat simulation.
Claims 12 and 20
Claims 12 and 20 recite substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 4. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 4, claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of Bhattacharya, Graham, and further in view of Dufresne, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,934,676, hereinafter “Dufresne”).
Claim 7
Westin, DeVore, and Graham do not appear to disclose:
add bonds to one or more of the apertures through which the system wiring is passed according to the designated routing, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the bonds as added.
Dufresne, which is analogous art, discloses:
add bonds to one or more of the apertures through which the system wiring is passed according to the designated routing, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the bonds as added.
At block 820, an EME-P subassembly is bonded to a surface of the aircraft component. For example, the EME-P article can be thermally bonded to the aircraft component. In some embodiments, the dielectric layer of the EME-P subassembly is exposed and thus functions as the outermost layer of the aircraft skin structure. Dufresne at col. 7, lines 1-6.
Dufresne is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to methods for reducing effects of electromagnetic events on structures of aircraft. Motivation to combine includes providing additional remedies to prevent EME threats, thus increasing possible rerouting paths for wiring.
Claims 15 and 23
Claims 15 and 23 recite substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 7. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 7, claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 8, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Westin in view of DeVore, Graham, and Bhattacharya, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,925,453, hereinafter “Bhattacharya”).
Claim 8
Westin, DeVore, and Graham do not appear to disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further generate at least one alternative predetermined threshold associated with the keep-out distance based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternative predetermined threshold.
Bhattacharya discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further generate at least one alternative predetermined threshold associated with the keep-out distance based on those of the locations that are identified, and the indicia for indicating the recommended modification includes the at least one alternative predetermined threshold.
A process 116 includes evaluating effects of one or more failure modes of the identified segment(s) on a system safety assessment (SSA) for the electrical wiring systems. It should be noted generally that the term “process” may be used in the disclosure and claims to refer to a single operation or a plurality of operations. It also should be noted generally that performance of processes as described in the disclosure and claims is not always necessarily sequential. Bhattacharya at col. 3, lines 4-11.
One or more failure modes are alternate thresholds.
Bhattacharya is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to identifying
locations where wiring in aircraft should not be routed. It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the references to
identify wiring that is within a threshold distance of an element that can affect the operation of the
wiring. Motivation to combine includes reducing development time and expense by utilizing a CAD
model to determine where to place wiring before the wiring is performed.
Claims 16 and 24
Claims 16 and 24 recite substantially the same as the method disclosed in claim 8. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claim 8, claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen, et al., “Simulation and analysis of EMP transient electromagnetic effect of aircraft”
Kazama, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0173662
Petri, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,282,896
Lester, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 10,295,438
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188