DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is responsive to application filed on 09/28/2022.
Claims 1-3 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed 09/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-3 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-3 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method for static identification of damage to a simply supported beam under an uncertain load, comprising:
step 1, applying a concentrated load to the simply supported beam by three-point bending, wherein the applied concentrated load is set to A , and acts on a midspan of the beam structure constraint [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
step 2, dividing the beam structure into eight equal segments along a key section according to a span l, and assuming that the eight segments have particular flexural rigidities of EI
PNG
media_image1.png
58
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
k3,k4kkk, and k8 each denote a reciprocal of a ratio of the flexural rigidity of each of the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment to the flexural rigidity of the first segment [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
step 3, arranging a tilt angle sensor at a segment section of the beam structure and at sections of fulcrums at both ends of the beam structure [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts], wherein the tilt angle sensor is used to measure a rotation angle at which the beam body rotates around a horizontal axis, a measured sectional rotation angle at the fulcrum close to the first segment is 90, a measured sectional rotation angle between the first segment and the second segment is 01, a measured sectional rotation angle between the second segment and the third segment is 92, by analogy, a measured sectional rotation angle between the third segment and the fourth segment is 83, a measured sectional rotation angle between the fourth segment and the fifth segment is 04, a measured sectional rotation angle between the fifth segment and the sixth segment is 05, a measured sectional rotation angle between the sixth segment and the seventh segment is 06, a measured sectional rotation angle between the seventh segment and the eighth segment is 27, and a measured sectional rotation angle at the fulcrum close to the eighth segment is 8 [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
PNG
media_image2.png
200
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([ mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical formula])
step 5, establishing a finite element numerical model of the simply supported beam in a damage-free state under a concentrated load P2 acting on the midspan, extracting the corresponding measured sectional rotation angles in step 3 and setting the same as BdBd02d03d04d05d06d 7d and sd, and calculating, according to the following formula, theoretical values k2d k3dk4d k5dk6d k7d and ksd of the structure in the damage-free state:
PNG
media_image3.png
135
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([ mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical formula])
step 6, calculating, according to the following formula, a variation of the flexural rigidity of
PNG
media_image4.png
294
603
media_image4.png
Greyscale
whereinA2,A3,4,5,6,07 and 8 respectively denote variations of the flexural rigidities of the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment with respect to the structure in the damage- free state ([ mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical formula]); and
step 7, solving following formulas to obtain amounts of damage DDD3D4DD6D7 and Dg of the first segment, the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment, respectively ([ mathematical concepts, i.e. mathematical formula]):
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “measure”. This additional element is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the claim recites an additional element of “sensor”. This additional element is insignificant pre/post solution (i.e. data gathering). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “measure” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. Further, claim recite additional component such as a “sensor”. However, this additional component is considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See: US Publication No. 2017/0322118 A1 issued to SPERLING et al, [0119] The control unit 108 is configured to introduce the actual mechanical input signal ISA at a defined angle of rotation of the wheel set 105 about its wheel set axis 105.3. This angle of rotation is either captured by suitable sensors).
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [“mathematical concept].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “as far as possible” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as far as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is the limitation of “as far as possible”? Does this mean “infinity”? The limitation seems no bounding number. Therefore, it is relative term and also vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3 depend on independent claim 1. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency on the allowable independent claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guest et al (J. K. Guest, T. Igusa, “Structural optimization under uncertain loads and nodal locations”, pgs. 116-124, 2008) teaches solving structural topology optimization problems with uncertainty in the magnitude and location of the applied loads and with small uncertainty in the location of the structural nodes (Abstract), modeling structural fabrication errors in components or construction errors in structures (pg. 123 right side column).
Karis et al (Z. Karis, “Flexural Rigidity (D) in Beams”, pgs. 1-60, 2017) discloses:
Page 11:
PNG
media_image5.png
319
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
’
Page 23:
PNG
media_image6.png
429
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Page 26:
PNG
media_image7.png
454
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Page 36:
PNG
media_image8.png
488
643
media_image8.png
Greyscale
None of the references singly or in combination disclose:
“step 1. applying a concentrated load to the simply supported beam by three-point bending, wherein the applied concentrated load is set to P,, and acts on a midspan of the beam structure:
PNG
media_image9.png
138
783
media_image9.png
Greyscale
kk7 and k3 each denote a reciprocal of a ratio of the flexural rigidity of each of the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment to the flexural rigidity of the first segment; step 3, arranging a tilt angle sensor at a segment section of the beam structure and at sections of fulcrums at both ends of the beam structure, wherein the tilt angle sensor is used to measure a rotation angle at which the beam body rotates around a horizontal axis, a measured sectional rotation angle at the fulcrum close to the first segment is O, a measured sectional rotation angle between the first segment and the second segment is B , a measured sectional rotation angle between the second segment and the third segment is 02, by analogy, a measured sectional rotation angle between the third segment and the fourth segment isq1, a measured sectional rotation angle betweenthefourthsegmentandthefifthsegmentis4,ameasuredsectionalrotationangle between the fifth segment and the sixth segment is B , a measured sectional rotation angle between the sixth segment and the seventh segment is 06, a measured sectional rotation angle between the seventh segment and the eighth segment is B', and a measured sectional rotation angle at the fulcrum close to the eighth segment isB, step 4, solving the following formula by substituting the foregoing measured sectional rotation angles 0-0,to obtain k2, k3, k4, k5, k6, k7, and k8 k:
PNG
media_image10.png
120
546
media_image10.png
Greyscale
sstep 5, establishing a finite element numerical model of the simply supported beam in a damage-free state under a concentrated load P2 acting on the midspan, extracting the corresponding measured sectional rotation angles in step 3 and setting the same as 0,Id,2d0340B5067d and 08d, and calculating, according to the following formula, theoretical k,,kckkkkvalues2,3d,4d,d,d,7d and 6d of the structure in the damage-free state:
PNG
media_image11.png
443
785
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein A2,3,4,A,A6, and As respectively denote variations of the flexural rigidities of the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment with respect to the structure in the damage-free state; and DD,DD4D-1D step 7, solving following formulas to obtain amounts of damage I,,.,4,D6D7 and D- of the first segment, the second segment, the third segment, the fourth segment, the fifth segment, the sixth segment, the seventh segment and the eighth segment, respectively:
PNG
media_image12.png
92
483
media_image12.png
Greyscale
” as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 12/09/2025